Emerging Markets

Highlights A thorough audit of our trade book highlights that our country and sector allocation recommendations have been quite profitable for investors. Of the 12 active trades in our book, 11 have generated a positive return, including one with a 32% annualized rate of return. A review of the original basis and subsequent performance of our trades suggests that investors should close 6 out of 12 of our active positions, predominantly related to resource & construction and domestic stock market themes. We will be looking for opportunities to add new trades to our book over the coming weeks and months that have broad, "big-picture" relevance. Watch this space. Feature In this week's report we conduct a thorough audit of our trade book, by revisiting the original basis and subsequent performance of all 12 of our active trades. While these trades have been initiated at different points over the past five years, they can be broadly grouped into five different themes: Core Equity Allocation & General Pro-Risk Trades (4 Trades) Reform-Oriented Trades (2 Trades) Resource & Construction Plays (2 Trades) Domestic Stock Market Trades (2 Trades) Trades Linked To Hong Kong (2 Trades) Overall, our trade book performance has been excellent. Of the 12 active trades in our book, 11 have generated a positive return, including one with a 32% annualized rate of return (since December 2015). As a result of our trade book review, we recommend that investors close six trades and maintain six over the coming 6-12 months. The closed trades predominantly fall into the resource & construction and domestic stock market categories, although we also recommend closing our long China H-share / short industrial commodity trade as well as our long Hong Kong REITs / short Hong Kong broad market trade. We present our rationale for retaining or closing each trade below. Over the coming weeks and months we will be looking for opportunities to add new trades to our book. Stay tuned. Core Equity Allocation & General Pro-Risk Trades We have four open core equity allocation and pro-risk trades: Overweight MSCI China Investable stocks versus the emerging markets benchmark, initiated on May 2, 2012 Long China H-shares / short industrial commodities, initiated on March 16, 2016 Short MSCI Taiwan / Long MSCI China Investable, initiated on February 2, 2017 and Long China onshore corporate bonds, initiated on June 22, 2017 We recommend that investors stick with three of these trades, but close the long China H-shares / short industrial commodities position for the following reasons: Chart 1Be Overweight China Vs EM In This Environment Be Overweight China Vs EM In This Environment Be Overweight China Vs EM In This Environment Overweight MSCI China Investable Stocks Versus The EM Benchmark (Maintain) This trade represents one of the most important equity allocation calls for Chinese stocks, and is one of the ways that BCA expresses a view on the Chinese economy in our House View Matrix.1 While it hasn't always been the case, we noted in a recent Special Report that Chinese stocks have become a high-beta equity market versus both the global aggregate and the emerging market benchmark, even when excluding the technology sector.2 China's high-beta nature, the fact that EM equities remain in an uptrend (Chart 1), and our view that China's ongoing slowdown is likely to be benign and controlled all suggest that investors should continue to overweight Chinese stocks vs their emerging market peers. Long China H-Shares / Short Industrial Commodities (Close) We initiated this trade in March 2016, one month after Chinese stock prices bottomed following the significant economic slowdown in 2015. At that time it was not clear to global investors that a mini-cycle upswing in the Chinese economy had begun, and this pair trade was a way of taking a limited pro-risk bet. Given our view of a benign, controlled economic slowdown in China, this hedged trade is no longer needed, especially given the uncertain impact of ongoing supply side constraints in China on global commodity prices. As such, we recommend that investors close the trade, locking in an annualized return of 15.7%. Short MSCI Taiwan / Long MSCI China Investable (Maintain) Chart 2If The TWD Declines Materially, ##br##Upgrade Taiwan (From Short) If The TWD Declines Materially, Upgrade Taiwan (From Short) If The TWD Declines Materially, Upgrade Taiwan (From Short) We initiated our short MSCI Taiwan / long MSCI China investable trade last February, when the risk of protectionist action from the Trump administration loomed large. While there have been no negative trade actions levied against Taiwan this year, macro factors, particularly the strength of the currency, continue to argue for an underweight stance within the greater China bourses (China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan). We reviewed the basis of this trade in a report last month,3 and recommended that investors stick with the call despite significantly oversold conditions (Chart 2). A material easing in pressure on Taiwan's trade-weighted exchange rate appears to be the most likely catalyst to close the trade and to upgrade Taiwan within a portfolio of greater China equities. Long China Onshore Corporate Bonds (Maintain) Chinese corporate bond yields have risen materially since late-2016, largely in response to expectations of tighter monetary policy. These expectations have been validated, with 3-month interbank rates having risen over 200bps since late-2016. We argued last summer that the phase of maximum liquidity tightening was likely over, and that quality spreads and government bond yields would probably drop over the coming three to six months. While this clearly did not occur (yields and spreads rose), the total return from this trade has remained in the black owing to the significant yield advantage of these bonds versus similarly-rated bonds in the developed world. Chart 3 highlights that Chinese 5-year corporate bond spreads are also considerably less correlated with equity prices than their investment-grade peers in the U.S. This underscores that the rise in yields and spreads over the past year has reflected expectations of tighter monetary policy, not rising default risk. Our sense is that barring a significant improvement in China's growth momentum, significant further monetary policy tightening is improbable, meaning that corporate bond yields are not likely to rise much further. As a final point, as of today's report we are changing the benchmark for this trade from a BCA calculation based on a basket of 5-year AAA and AA-rated corporate bonds to the ChinaBond Corporate Credit Bond Total Return Index. Chart 3Chinese Corporate Spreads Aren't A Risk ##br##Barometer Like In The U.S. Chinese Corporate Spreads Aren't A Risk Barometer Like In The U.S. Chinese Corporate Spreads Aren't A Risk Barometer Like In The U.S. Reform-Oriented Trades We have two open trades related to China's rebooted reform initiative, both of which were initiated on November 16, 2017: Long China investable consumer staples / short consumer discretionary stocks and Long China investable environmental and social governance (ESG) leaders / short investable broad market These trades were recently opened, and we continue to recommend that investors maintain both positions: Long China Investable Consumer Staples / Short Consumer Discretionary Stocks (Maintain) The basis for the first trade stems from the current limitations of China's investable consumer discretionary index as a clear-cut play on retail-oriented consumer spending. We argued in our November 16 Weekly Report that Chinese investable consumer staples would be a better play on Chinese consumer spending owing to the material weight of the automobiles & components industry group in the discretionary sector, which may fare poorly over the coming year due to the environmental mandate of President Xi's proposed reforms. We argued in the report that this trade would likely be driven by alpha rather than beta, and indeed Chart 4 illustrates that staples continue to rise relative to discretionary against a backdrop of a rising broad market. Long China Investable ESG leaders / Short Investable Broad Market (Maintain) In the same report we recommended that investors overweight the China investable ESG leaders index, based on the goal of favoring firms that are best positioned to deliver "sustainable" growth in an era of heightened environmental reforms. The index overweights firms with the highest MSCI ESG ratings in each sector (using a proprietary MSCI ranking scheme), and maintains similar sector weights as the investable benchmark, which limits the beta risk of the trade. Chart 5 highlights that the trade is progressing in line with our expectations, suggesting that investors stick with the position over the coming 6-12 months. Chart 4Staples Vs Discretionary Isn't A Low Beta Trade Staples Vs Discretionary Isn't A Low Beta Trade Staples Vs Discretionary Isn't A Low Beta Trade Chart 5Likely To Continue To Outperform Likely To Continue To Outperform Likely To Continue To Outperform Resource & Construction Plays We have two open trades related to the resource sector: Long China investable oil & gas stocks / short global oil & gas stocks, initiated on April 26, 2014 and Long China investable construction materials sector / short investable broad market, initiated on December 9, 2015 We recommend that investors close both of these positions, based on the following rationale: Chart 6Similar Earnings Profile, ##br##But Weaker Dividend Payouts Similar Earnings Profile, But Weaker Dividend Payouts Similar Earnings Profile, But Weaker Dividend Payouts Long China Investable Oil & Gas Stocks / Short Global Oil & Gas Stocks (Close) This trade was initiated based on the view that the valuation gap between Chinese and global oil & gas companies is unjustifiable given that the earnings off both sectors are globally driven. Indeed, Chart 6 shows that the trailing EPS profiles of both sectors in US$ terms have been broadly similar over the past few years, and yet China's oil & gas sector trades at a 40% price-to-book discount relative to its global peers. However, panel 2 of Chart 6 highlights that this discount may represent investor concerns about earnings quality and/or state-owned corporate governance. The chart shows that while the earnings ROE for Chinese oil & gas companies is higher than that of the global average, the dividend ROE (dividends per share as a percent of shareholders equity) is considerably lower. While China's oil & gas dividend ROE has recently been rising, the gap remains wide relative to global oil & gas companies, suggesting that there is no significant re-rating catalyst that is likely to emerge over the coming 6-12 months. Close for an annualized return of 1.4%. Long China Investable Construction Material Stocks / Short China Investable Broad Market (Close) The relative performance of Chinese investable construction material stocks has been positive over the past two years, with the trade having generated an 8.1% annualized return since initiation. There are two factors contributing to our view that it is time for investors to book profits on this trade. The first is that China's investable construction materials are dominated by cement companies, which may suffer in relative terms from China's rebooted reform initiative this year.4 The second is that the relative performance of construction materials stocks is closely correlated with, and led by, the growth in total real estate investment (Chart 7). Residential investment makes up a significant component of total real estate investment, and Chart 8 highlights that a significant gap between floor space sold and completed has narrowed the inventory to sales ratio over the past three years. But the ratio remains somewhat elevated relative to its history which, when coupled with the ongoing growth slowdown in China and the deceleration in total real estate investment growth, implies a poor risk/reward ratio over the coming 6-12 months. Chart 7Cement Producers Trade Off Of Real Estate Investment Cement Producers Trade Off Of Real Estate Investment Cement Producers Trade Off Of Real Estate Investment Chart 8No Clear Construction Boom Is Imminent No Clear Construction Boom Is Imminent No Clear Construction Boom Is Imminent Domestic Stock Market Trades We have two open trades related to China's domestic stock market: Long China domestic utility sector / short domestic broad market, initiated on January 22, 2014 and Long China domestic food & beverage sector / short domestic broad market, initiated on December 9, 2015 Similar to our resource & construction plays, we recommend that investors close both of our recommended domestic stock market trades: Long China Domestic Utility Sector / Short Domestic Broad Market (Close) We initiated this trade in early-2014, following a comprehensive reform plan released in late-2013 by the Chinese government. The plan called for allowing market forces to play a decisive role in allocating resources, which we argued would grant utilities more pricing power, reduce their earnings volatility associated with policy risks, and lead to a structural positive re-rating. Chart 9 illustrates that this trade gained significant ground in 2014 and early-2015, even prior to the significant melt-up in domestic stock prices that began in Q2 2015. However, the trade has underperformed significantly since the middle of last year, which has been driven by a sharp deterioration in ROE. This decline in ROE appears to have been cost-driven, as coal is an important feedstock for Chinese utility companies and has risen substantially in price over the past two years. While domestic utilities are now significantly oversold in relative terms, we recommend that investors close this trade because the original reform-oriented basis has shifted significantly. The priorities that emanated from October's Party Congress were decidedly environmental in nature, meaning that coal prices may very well remain elevated over the coming 6-12 months (due to restricted supply). This means that a recovery in ROE would rest on the need to raise utility prices, which is a low-visibility event that will be difficult to predict. Close for an annualized return of 3%. Long China Domestic Food & Beverage Sector / Short Domestic Broad Market (Close) We initiated this trade in December 2015, based on this sector's superior corporate fundamentals and undemanding valuation levels. We argued that the anti-corruption campaign since late-2012 was likely the cause of prior underperformance, given that the group is dominated by a few high-end alcohol producers. The market overacted to the high-profile crackdown, and ultimately the fundamentals of the sector did not deteriorate materially. Our view has panned out spectacularly, with the trade having earned a 32% annualized return since inception5 (Chart 10 panel 1). While the group's ROE remains significantly above that of the domestic benchmark, valuation measures suggest that investors have more than priced this in (Chart 10 panel 2). The trade has mostly played out and we would not like to overstay our welcome. In addition, panel 3 illustrates that technical conditions are extremely overbought, suggesting that investors are being presented with an excellent opportunity to exit the position. Chart 9Sidelined By A Major Hit To ROE Sidelined By A Major Hit To ROE Sidelined By A Major Hit To ROE Chart 10Time To Book Profits Time To Book Profits Time To Book Profits Trades Linked To Hong Kong We have two open trades related to Hong Kong: Long U.S. / short Hong Kong 10-Year government bonds, initiated on January 15, 2014 and Short Hong Kong property investors / long Hong Kong broad market, initiated on January 21, 2015 We recommend that investors stick with the first and close the second, based on the following perspectives: Long U.S. / Short Hong Kong 10-Year Government Bonds (Maintain) Hong Kong has an open capital account and an exchange rate pegged to the U.S. dollar, meaning that its monetary policy is directly tied to that of the U.S. Yet, Hong Kong's 10-year government bond yield is non-trivially below that of the U.S., which argues for a short stance versus similar maturity U.S. Treasurys. While it is true that the Hong Kong - U.S. 10-year yield spread does vary and can widen over a 6-12 month horizon, Chart 11 highlights that the relative total return profile of the trade (in unhedged terms) trends higher over time due to the carry advantage. Short Hong Kong REITs / Long Hong Kong Broad Market (Close) There are cross-currents facing the outlook for Hong Kong REITs vs the broad market, arguing for a neutral rather than an underweight stance. Close this trade for an annualized return of 3.6%. While the relative performance of global REITs is typically negatively correlated with bond yields, Chart 12 shows that the relationship with Hong Kong property yields has been positive and lagging (i.e. falling yields lead declining relative performance, and vice versa). Under this regime, a rise in U.S. government bond yields, as we expect, would suggest an improvement in the relative performance of Hong Kong REITs. Chart 11A Straightforward Carry Pick Up Trade A Straightforward Carry Pick Up Trade A Straightforward Carry Pick Up Trade Chart 12Rising Bond Yields Implies ##br##Positive HK REIT Performance Rising Bond Yields Implies Positive HK REIT Performance Rising Bond Yields Implies Positive HK REIT Performance Chart 13 highlights that periods of positive yield / REIT performance correlation have tended to occur when Hong Kong property prices are rising significantly relative to income, as they have been for the past several years. One interpretation of this dynamic is that when house prices are overvalued and potentially vulnerable, REIT investors react positively to an improvement in economic fundamentals (which tends to push yields up due to higher interest rate expectations). The risk of an eventual collapse of Hong Kong property prices is clear, but we cannot identify an obvious catalyst for this to occur over the coming 6-12 months. Importantly, the fact that property prices have continued to rise during a period of tighter mainland capital controls suggests that only a significant economic shock will be enough to derail the uptrend in prices, circumstances that we do not expect over the coming year. Finally, Chart 14 highlights that Hong Kong REITs are deeply discounted relative to book value when compared against the broad market. This suggests that at least some of the risks associated with the property market have already been priced in by investors. Chart 13Yields & REITs Positively Correlated ##br##When House Prices Are Overvalued Yields & REITs Positively Correlated When House Prices Are Overvalued Yields & REITs Positively Correlated When House Prices Are Overvalued Chart 14Hong Kong REITs Are Cheap Hong Kong REITs Are Cheap Hong Kong REITs Are Cheap Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.bcaresearch.com/trades 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: No Longer A Low-Beta Market", dated January 11, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Taiwan: Awaiting A Re-Rating Catalyst", dated December 14, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Messages From The Market, Post-Party Congress", dated November 16, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please note that the total return from this trade had been erroneously reported for some time due a data processing error on BCA's part. The return since inception now properly sources the China CSI SWS Food & Beverage index from CHOICE. We sincerely regret the error and any confusion it may have caused. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights While bullish sentiment for copper remains high, concerns that policymakers' attempts at a managed slowdown in China this year goes too far will weigh on the market. Fundamentally, support for copper prices from potential supply shortfalls at both the mining and refining levels will be offset by a stronger USD and slower growth in China this year (Chart of the Week). Despite our expectation a slight physical supply deficit will emerge this year, we remain neutral copper. We do not believe this will be enough to rally prices in a meaningful way. Energy: Overweight. Ministers from Saudi Arabia and Russia confirmed OPEC 2.0 - the oil-producer coalition led by these states - will survive beyond the expiry of their production-management deal at the end of this year. What and how they will manage the production of coalition members, however, remains unknown. Base Metals: Neutral. Positive fundamentals for copper are at risk if the USD rallies on the back of Fed tightening this year or China's managed economic slowdown is too severe (see below). Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices remained well bid, despite expectations for three or four Fed rate hikes this year, suggesting the market is pricing in either fewer rate hikes and lower real rates, or geopolitical risk - most prominently in Venezuela or North Korea. We remain long gold as a strategic portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Soybean has been gaining ground on concerns about yield damage due to droughts in parts of Argentina. Expectations of a bumper year for Brazil will mitigate the impact on global supply. Feature Bullish copper sentiment is at a multi-year high, with four bulls for every bear in the market (Chart 2). The strong global economy, weak USD, and elevated risk of further supply-side disruptions - at mines as well as at the refining level - are feeding into buyers' optimism. Chart of the WeekChina Fears Weighing##BR##On Copper Prices China Fears Weighing On Copper Prices China Fears Weighing On Copper Prices Chart 2Bullish Sentiment Remains##BR##At Multi-Year Highs Bullish Sentiment Remains At Multi-Year Highs Bullish Sentiment Remains At Multi-Year Highs Our outlook for 2018 calls for another, albeit smaller, refined copper deficit (Chart 3). This will come on the back of escalated risks from supply side disruptions at mines in Chile and Peru, and potential constraints on primary and secondary refined output from China, the largest refined copper producer (Table 1). Chart 3A (Smaller) Deficit##BR##In 2018 A (Smaller) Deficit In 2018 A (Smaller) Deficit In 2018 Table 1China Is Significant For##BR##Copper Supply And Demand Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper China also is the world's largest refined-copper consumer, which makes the risk of a more severe downturn in China arising from too much policy-driven restraint in the metal's top consumer acute. In the following sections, we present our expectations for the fundamentals: copper mine output, refined copper production, and refined copper consumption. Industrial Action Will Threaten Mine Output Again In 2018 Copper had an exceptional year in 2017. The synchronized global upturn and weak USD set the stage for a memorable performance. On the supply-side, disruptions at some of the world's largest mines pushed prices up 8% in 1H17. Although the risk of further production shocks had subsided by 2H17, copper gained another 22% on the back of restrictive Chinese scrap import policies and better than expected demand fundamentals. Last year, the copper market registered a physical deficit, mainly on the back of a decline in copper mine supply. A 0.3% yoy fall in copper ores and concentrate output in the first eleven months of the year kept production broadly unchanged compared to the same period last year. In fact, this was the first yoy decline for that period since 2002, and contrasts with an average 5% expansion in ore and concentrate output for that period since 2012 (Chart 4). The most notable supply side disruptions last year were: Chart 4Supply Disruptions Put##BR##Copper In Deficit Last Year Supply Disruptions Put Copper In Deficit Last Year Supply Disruptions Put Copper In Deficit Last Year A 9% yoy decline in output from top producer Chile in 1H17. Chile accounts for more than a quarter of global ore & concentrate supply. The decline is a result of strikes at the Escondida mine as well as lower output from Codelco mines. The Indonesian government's ban on exports of copper ores in the first four months of the year led to a 6% yoy decline in production in the first eleven months. U.S. output, which accounts for~7% of global copper ores & concentrates supply is down 12% yoy in the first eleven months of 2017. In fact, the last time the U.S. recorded a positive yoy growth rate was in October 2016. The decline in U.S. output came mainly on the back of lower grade ores, a fall in mining rates, and poor weather conditions. The majority of these disruptions occurred in 1H17 - the first five months of the year witnessed a 1.6% yoy fall in output, while the Jun-Oct period experienced a 0.7% yoy increase. Nonetheless, the ramp up in second part of the year is significantly slower than the 6% yoy and 5% yoy increases in the same period in 2015 and 2016. Global supply was partially supported by Peruvian and European production. Peruvian output grew 3.6% yoy in the first eleven months of the year. However this rate is dwarfed in comparison to previous years. Output grew almost 40% yoy in 2016 and 23% yoy in 2015. Similarly, European output - which accounts for 8% of global supply - seems to be continuing its uptrend. It expanded by 2.4% in the first eleven months of 2017 to record the highest level of output for that period. In fact, growth in output is above the average 0.8% yoy pace in the same period in 2014-2016. We expect a small rebound in mine production in 2018. According to the International Copper Study Group, temporarily shut down capacity in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Zambia will resume operations, supporting mine supply this year. Supply-side disruptions pose a significant risk to mine supply again this year. An estimated more than 30 labor contracts, representing ~5mm MT of mined copper - a quarter of global production - will expire this year.1 While surely not all of these negotiations will result in strikes and supply disruptions, the figure is noteworthy as it is significantly above the average 1.7mm MT worth of annual copper supply at risk from contract renewal between 2011 and 2016. The most significant of these renewals is that which was most damaging last year. The 44-day strike at BHP Billiton's Escondida mine in Chile last year, which resulted in a 7.8% yoy fall at the world's most productive copper mine, ended without agreement. Although the contracts were extended, they are due for renegotiation in June. In fact, one of the unions at Escondida held a day long "warning strike" in November, an indication that they do not intend to back down from their demands. Unless management gives in, this implies a heightened risk of disruptions. Bottom Line: Supply disruptions negatively impacted mine supply in some of the world's top producers in 1H17. Although European and Peruvian supply has been somewhat supportive, global supply stagnated in 2017. Industrial action remains the major risk to mined copper this year. 5mm MT worth of copper ores and concentrates are at risk of supply side disruptions in 2018 - the highest figure since 2010. Environmental Reforms Limit Refined Production From China Chart 5China's Scrap Imports Cushion##BR##Against High Prices China's Scrap Imports Cushion Against High Prices China's Scrap Imports Cushion Against High Prices World refined production grew 1.3% yoy in the first eleven months of 2017, the slowest growth rate for that period since 2009. This reflects significant declines in refined copper production in Chile and the U.S. Supply disruptions at mines in Chile - the world's second-largest producer of refined copper - led to a 182k MT fall in refined output in the first eleven months of 2017, compared to the same period in 2016. Refined output from the U.S. fell by 91.4k MT in that period. However, the downside pressure on refined output from lower ore production was mitigated by increased secondary production from scrap, which accounts for ~20% of global refined copper production. Chinese copper producers took advantage of the oversupply in global scrap and ramped up their production. According to the ICSG global secondary output expanded by almost 10% yoy in the first ten months of last year. China's copper scrap imports increased 9% yoy in the first eleven months of last year, following four years of declines (Chart 5). China makes up less than 10% of global mined copper, but it is the largest producer of refined copper in the world, accounting for 36% of the global production. China is expected to remain the main contributor to world refined production growth (Chart 6). However, Beijing's environmental reforms, and measures to curb the imports of "foreign trash" will limit secondary refined production. Chart 6China Remains Most Significant Factor In Refined Production Growth Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper New policies affecting refined output in China are supportive of copper prices this year: 1. In relation to scrap copper, Beijing recently imposed two policy changes, in line with its environmental reforms. First, since the start of 2018, only copper scrap end-users and processors will be granted import licenses. Second, a proposal to limit the hazardous impurity levels in scrap copper imports to 1% by March. Both these policies will curtail China's scrap copper imports. China imports an estimated 3mm MT of scrap copper annually, accounting for roughly half of its total scrap copper supply. Such limitations would severely dent China's scrap supply. Furthermore, scrap copper imports play a significant role in China. They act as a buffer against high prices, soaring during periods of high prices and dwindling when prices are low - as they were between 2013 and 2016. If China does in fact go through with the tighter regulations on scrap imports, Chinese copper consumers would not be able to fall back on the secondary metal when prices rise - as they have been over the past year - leading to greater demand for imports of primary products, chasing prices higher. However, over the long term, we are likely to see Chinese scrap traders move their businesses offshore, notably in Southeast Asia, where they will process the scrap until it meets the regulations necessary to be imported by China.2 In fact, this has already started to happen in the case of the category 7 scrap - derived from end-of-life electronics, households, cars and industrial products - which is widely believed will be banned by year-end. Nevertheless, these recycling plants do not yet exist. Thus, the transition cannot occur overnight, and we expect the tighter policies on scrap imports to support prices in the interim as China increases its imports of ores and refined copper in order to fill the supply gap. 2. China's environmental reforms also pose a risk on refined supply this year. Smelters and refiners risk being shut down if they do not comply with tighter pollution controls. This could limit copper output this year. Similar to the winter production cuts occurring at steel and aluminum producers, China's second largest copper smelter - Tongling Nonferrous Metals Group - announced plans to reduce its smelter capacity by up to 30% during the winter.3 In addition, late last month, China's largest smelter - Jiangxi Copper Co. - was forced to curb output while local pollution levels were assessed.4 The extent to which these measures are adopted by other producers will interrupt refined output this year. Given the more elevated pollution levels during the winter months, this risk is most notable in the November to March period. Bottom Line: The major risk to refined copper supply is China's environmental reforms which will likely constrain copper scrap imports, and could lead to temporary shutdowns of polluting smelters and refineries. If Beijing tightens these regulations, we are likely to witness disruptions in both primary and secondary refined output, while the copper supply chain readjusts to be able to comply with these policies. Slowdown In China Would Temper Copper World refined copper consumption grew 0.8% yoy in the first eleven months of 2017. Weaker consumption was mainly in the 1H17, during which global consumption fell 1.8% yoy, whereas consumption in the July-to-November period accelerated by 3.9% yoy. Weaker demand in the first half of the year came on the back of weaker demand from China, which accounts for half of global consumption. China recorded a 7.7% yoy fall in consumption of refined copper in the January-to-April period. However, Chinese copper demand subsequently strengthened, accelerating by 7.4% yoy in the May-to-November period. While demand from the rest of the world muted the impact of weaker Chinese consumption in the first half of the year, it weakened in the second half of the year, falling 3.3% yoy in the May-to-October period. This fall in copper demand was driven by a 5.5% yoy fall in the U.S., and to a lesser extent, a 2.0% yoy fall in demand in Japan in the May-to-November period. According to China Customs data, China's refined copper imports fell 5.1% in 2017 after growing 3.7% in 2016 (Chart 7). However, what is noteworthy is that while imports fell 18.3% yoy in H1, they picked up in H2, increasing by 11.3% yoy, mainly on the back of strong demand in Q3. This is in line with strong economic performance in China in 2H17 - an upside surprise which supported copper prices. Going into 2018, we expect a managed deceleration in China - and in China's demand for copper - to be mitigated by stronger demand from the rest of the world. In fact, the IMF revised up its 2018 and 2019 global growth forecasts in the latest WEO Update earlier this week (Table 2). Global growth is now forecast to reach 3.9% in 2018, up from the estimated 3.7% last year. Chart 7China's Q4 Imports Were Strong China's Q4 Imports Were Strong China's Q4 Imports Were Strong Table 2Upward Revisions To IMF Growth Projections Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper Chart 8Speed Bump Ahead For China? Speed Bump Ahead For China? Speed Bump Ahead For China? That said, our China construction Indicator - which includes several variables measuring construction activity in China - shows strong growth in the main end-user for copper (Chart 8). Given that building construction accounts for 43% of copper end-use in China, this indicates demand for copper should remain healthy in the near term. Furthermore, despite concerns of a slowdown, China's manufacturing PMI still points to a healthy economy. Even so, a decline in the Li Keqiang Index, which tracks industrial activity, warrants caution and could be signaling trouble ahead for the Chinese economy. In addition, government spending has decelerated significantly from its mid-2017 peak. Against these risks, the global economy is expected to remain strong. Thus the biggest risk to our assessment is a pronounced deceleration in China which would hit demand for the red metal. Bottom Line: The major risk to refined copper demand this year is a slowdown from China. Downside Risk From A Stronger USD In addition to the fundamental variables highlighted above, U.S. monetary policy - and its effect on the USD - will also be an important driver of the copper market. We expect the Fed to embark on its interest rate normalization process more aggressively this year, hiking its policy rate up to four times. This would see copper prices weaken as the red metal becomes more expensive in USD terms. The USD is significant because a weaker dollar means that dollar-based commodities are cheaper for foreign buyers. Thus, foreigners tend to buy dollar-denominated commodities when the USD is weak, and sell when the USD is strong, in order to also benefit from exchange rate differentials. Continued weakness of the USD has been supportive of copper prices since the beginning of 2017. A risk to our outlook is an unexpectedly dovish Fed, which would keep the dollar muted and be favorable to copper. Bottom Line: We expect the copper market to record a small physical deficit this year. A stronger USD and deceleration in China will prevent a repeat of 2017's performance. However supply side disruptions at the mine and refined levels will provide opportunities for some upside in the market. Synchronized global demand will be a tailwind throughout the year. In the near term, we expect copper to continue gyrating around its current level of $3.10/lb. Absent a marked slowdown in China, we expect a rally into mid-year as contract renegotiations get underway. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Copper soars to 4-year high as funds bet on shortages," dated December 28, 2017, available at reuters.com. 2 Please see "As China restricts scrap metal companies look to process copper abroad," dated January 8, 2018, available at reuters.com. 3 Please see "Chinese Copper Smelter Halts Capacity to Ease Winter Pollution," dated December 7, 2017, available at Bloomberg.com. 4 Please see "Copper Rallies to Three-Year High as China Plant Halts Output," dated December 26, 2017, available at Bloomberg.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper

Highlights EM stocks are about one standard deviation above their fair value, according to several valuation indicators. Provided EM equities are neither extremely overvalued nor undervalued, the key to their performance over the next 12 months will be corporate profits. Having missed this rally, we are reluctant to chase it at current levels amid the prevailing investor euphoria and overbought conditions. Compared with DM equities, EMs are not cheap - relative valuations are neutral. Meanwhile, the corporate profit outlook is better in DM than EM. As a result, we are reiterating our underweight stance on EM stocks versus DM bourses. Feature This week we delve into overall emerging markets (EM) stock valuations. Next month we will publish another report outlining a valuation ranking among individual EM bourses and equity sectors. After the significant share price run up, the question for investors is whether EM equities are still cheap or have become overvalued. Our composite valuation indicator based on trimmed-mean multiples suggests that EM equity valuations are one standard deviation above their fair value (Chart I-1). The message is the same when using the medians of various multiples for 50 sub-sectors (Chart I-2). Chart I-1EM Equity Valuations: ##br##Trimmed-Mean Multiples bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c1 bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c1 Chart I-2EM Equity Valuations: ##br##Medians Of Multiples bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c2 bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c2 These two composite valuation indicators are the averages of the trailing P/E, forward P/E, price-to-cash earnings,1 price-to-book value (PBV) and price-to-dividend ratios. The 20%-trimmed mean excludes the top 10% and bottom 10% of sub-sectors - i.e., it removes outliers and then calculates an equal-weighted average. Finally, the composite valuation indicator using equal-weights (not market-cap weights) for all 11 sectors also corroborates that the overall EM universe is somewhat overvalued (Chart I-3). Interestingly, based on Chart I-1 and I-2, EM stocks did not become cheap at their 2016 bottom - they were only fairly valued in early 2016. The individual components of the composite median valuation indicator - based on medians of 50 EM sub-sectors - are presented in Chart I-4. The top three panels reveal that the trailing P/E, forward P/E and price-to-cash earnings ratios are all well above their historical mean, and close to their previous peaks. The components that keep the composite indicator from being extremely overvalued are the PBV and price-to-dividend ratios. These two variables are close to their historical means (Chart I-4, bottom two panels). Chart I-3EM Equity Valuation: ##br##Equal-Weighted Sector Multiples bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c3 bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c3 Chart I-4Components of Median ##br##Valuation Composite Components of Median Valuation Composite Components of Median Valuation Composite As to qualitative assessment of EM valuations, our sense is that EM equity segments that have good fundamentals are currently overvalued, while those that feature low multiples are "cheap" for a reason. Bottom Line: According to valuation indicators based on various multiples, EM stocks are moderately overvalued. Relative Valuations To DM Relative to DM, EM equity valuations are neutral. Both relative composite valuation indicators computed using 20% trimmed-mean and the median are at the middle of their historical range (Chart I-5). This signifies there is presently no valuation gap between EM and DM stocks. All these measures are determined using the MSCI indexes, and utilize comparable data for both DM and EM across all companies, industry groups and sectors. Using equal weighted-sector multiples, the EM versus DM relative composite valuation indicator also upholds that relative equity valuations are neutral (Chart I-6). This measure uses equal weights for all sectors in both the EM and DM stock indexes. Hence, this composite removes sector weight differences among various equity indexes. EM equity valuations are also on par with the U.S. stock market, based on 20% trimmed-mean, median or equal sector-weighted multiples (Chart I-7). Chart I-5EM Versus DM: Relative Trimmed-Mean##br## And Median Multiples bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c5 bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c5 Chart I-6EM Versus DM: Relative Equal-Weighted ##br##Sector Multiples bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c6 bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c6 Chart I-7EM Versus U.S.: Trimmed-Mean, Median And ##br##Equal-Weighted Sector Multiples bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c7 bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c7 The takeaway from these relative valuation composites is that EM stocks are neither cheap nor expensive compared with U.S. or other DM equities. This is contrary to the widely held view among many investors and commentators that EM stocks are cheap versus DM in general, and the U.S. in particular. Additionally, in absolute terms, EM, DM and U.S. equities are all - about one standard deviation - expensive, according to these valuation yardsticks. Bottom Line: After removing outlier sub-sectors with the lowest and highest multiples and using equal weights for all sectors in the equity benchmarks, EM valuations appear comparable to those in the DM universe and the U.S. The CAPE Ratio: A Structural Valuation Perspective Our cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio for the EM equity universe currently stands at its fair value (Chart I-8). Due to the lack of historical data for EM, we were unable to use Robert Shiller's methodology for constructing the CAPE ratio for developing markets. The Shiller method uses a 10-year moving average of EPS to calculate the cyclically adjusted EPS. However, in the case of EM aggregate EPS, data go back only to 1986. If we were to calculate a 10-year moving average, we would lose 10 years of data, and the valuation indicator would only start in 1994. This is too short a time frame for a structural valuation indicator. Instead, we used the following methodology to construct the CAPE ratio: We deflated EM EPS and EM equity prices (both in U.S. dollar terms) by U.S. consumer price inflation (CPI) to get both EM EPS and EM share prices in real (inflation-adjusted) U.S. dollar terms. Then we regressed EM EPS in real U.S. dollar terms against a time trend. The resulting trend line represents the cyclically adjusted EPS in real U.S. dollar terms (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Finally, we divided EM stock prices in real U.S. dollar terms by the EM EPS trend line. The outcome is the EM CAPE ratio (Chart I-8, top panel). To be sure that our methodology produced a reasonable outcome, we computed a CAPE ratio using our methodology for the U.S. stock market and compared it with the Shiller CAPE ratio. Chart I-9 demonstrates that our methodology generated a CAPE ratio quite similar to Shiller's CAPE ratio from 1935 to the present. Consequently, we are comfortable that the results generated by our methodology are robust and sensible. When we calculate the EM versus U.S. relative CAPE ratio, the outcome is that EM appears cheap versus the U.S. stock market (Chart I-10). The degree of relative undervaluation is meaningful: one standard deviation. Chart I-8EM CAPE Ratio Is At Fair Value EM CAPE Ratio Is At Fair Value EM CAPE Ratio Is At Fair Value Chart I-9U.S. CAPE Ratio: EMS Vs. Shiller U.S. CAPE Ratio: EMS Vs. Shiller U.S. CAPE Ratio: EMS Vs. Shiller Chart I-10Relative CAPE Ratio: EM Versus U.S. Relative CAPE Ratio: EM Versus U.S. Relative CAPE Ratio: EM Versus U.S. The idea behind the CAPE model is to remove cyclicality of corporate profits when computing the P/E ratio. Our CAPE model gauges stock valuations under the assumption of EPS converging to their trend line. The latter is the cyclically adjusted EPS in real U.S. dollar terms. The slope of the time trend - the historical annual compound growth rate of EPS in inflation-adjusted U.S. dollar terms - is 2.8% for EM and 2% for the U.S. Please note that we determined the earnings time trend using the historical range of 1983-present for EM and 1935-present for the U.S. Hence, these CAPE models assume that EM EPS will grow 0.8% (2.8% - 2%) percentage points faster than U.S. corporate EPS in the inflation-adjusted U.S. dollar terms, as they have done historically. Under this assumption, EM stocks are materially cheaper than the U.S. market. Finally, the CAPE ratio is a structural valuation model, i.e., it works in the long term. Only investors with a time horizon greater than 3-5 years should use CAPE in their investment decisions. Bottom Line: According to our CAPE models, EM equities are fairly valued in absolute terms, but they are meaningfully cheaper than U.S. stocks. What About Interest Rates And Profits The above valuation measures did not incorporate one important variable: interest rates. The current high equity valuations in both DM and EM would in some way be justified if both global bond yields and EM local interest rates held at current low levels. Our bias is that U.S. bond yields will break out, dragging up other DM bond yields. DM government bond prices seem to be teetering on the edge of a technical breakdown (Chart I-11). The current robust growth in the U.S. and euro area justifies upward revisions to their interest rate expectations. In turn, higher U.S. bond yields will put a floor under the U.S. dollar. We anticipate that most of the potential U.S. dollar rally will occur versus EM and commodities currencies, and less so against the euro and other European currencies. Chart I-12 demonstrates that since January 2017, EM currencies have defied the rise in U.S. inflation-linked bond (TIPS) yields. We expect the negative correlation between EM currencies and U.S. TIPS yields - which existed from 2013 to 2017 - to re-establish itself. Chart I-11DM Bond Prices Are On Edge Of Breakdown DM Bond Prices Are On Edge Of Breakdown DM Bond Prices Are On Edge Of Breakdown Chart I-12EM Currencies And U.S. Real Yields EM Currencies And U.S. Real Yields EM Currencies And U.S. Real Yields This will likely occur as the recently approved tax cuts buoy the U.S. economy. Meanwhile, in China, regulatory tightening on banking and shadow banking as well as liquidity tightening will weigh on mainland growth. A shift in relative China-U.S. growth dynamics in favor of the U.S. will likely lead to a setback in the value of EM exchange rates. In turn, EM currency depreciation will produce higher local bond yields in a number of high-yielding developing markets (Chart I-13). Overall, the odds favor rising DM bond yields in the coming months. This, along with a slowdown in China, will trigger a selloff in EM currencies. The latter will produce widening EM credit (sovereign and corporate) spreads and lead to higher EM domestic bond yields. Altogether, this warrants a de-rating of EM versus DM equity multiples. On corporate profits, visible growth deceleration in China heralds a notable relapse in commodities prices and EM EPS growth. Our EM EPS model - based on narrow money (M1) growth - continues to flash red on the EM corporate profit outlook (Chart I-14). Chart I-13EM Currencies And Local Bond Yields EM Currencies And Local Bond Yields EM Currencies And Local Bond Yields Chart I-14EM EPS Is At Risk EM EPS Is At Risk EM EPS Is At Risk Investment Conclusions Chart I-15Bottom-Up Analysts Are ##br##Record Bullish On EM EPS Bottom-Up Analysts Are Record Bullish On EM EPS Bottom-Up Analysts Are Record Bullish On EM EPS Equity valuations matter most when valuations are at an extreme - two standard deviations overvalued or undervalued. This is presently not the case for EM stocks. Provided EM equities are neither extremely overvalued nor undervalued, the key to their performance over the next 12 months will be corporate profits. We expect EM corporate growth to downshift due to a slowdown in China and a setback in commodities prices. EM is more leveraged to China than to the U.S. or Europe. Hence, robust growth in DM is not inconsistent with our negative view on EM currencies and stocks. In the meantime, EM share prices continue to exhibit strong momentum. It is difficult to time a reversal amid such intense capital inflows. Nevertheless, from a big-picture perspective, such a stampede and the ensuing melt-up in stock prices typically precedes a major top. Having missed this rally, we are reluctant to chase it at current levels amid the prevailing investor euphoria (Chart I-15) and overbought conditions. Compared with DM equities, EMs are not cheap - relative valuations are neutral. Hence, there is no valuation justification to favor EM versus DM. Meanwhile, the corporate profit outlook is better in DM than in EM. As a result, we are reiterating our underweight stance on EM versus DM stocks. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Assistant andrijav@bcaresearch.com 1 MSCI defines cash earnings as earnings per share including depreciation and amortization as reported by the company. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights The U.S. government shutdown showed that the path of least resistance is for more fiscal spending; President Trump is turning to trade and foreign policy amid a lack of popularity at home; North Korean diplomacy is on track, but U.S.-China relations and Taiwan are potential black swans; Iran and the U.S. are playing a risky double game that will add geopolitical risk premium to oil; NAFTA will be a bellwether for Trump's future actions on issues that carry greater constraints, like Iran and China; Book profits on French vs German industrials and China volatility; close U.S. curve steepener and long PHP/TWD. Feature This weekend, investors woke up to the nineteenth government shutdown since 1976, a product of "grand standing" on both sides of the aisle. Our low-conviction view, which we elucidated last week, is that President Donald Trump will be forced to migrate to the middle on policy as the midterm election approaches.1 Chart 1Trump Hitting (And Building!) A Wall Watching Five Risks Watching Five Risks Despite a roaring stock market, strong economic fundamentals, and decade-low unemployment, President Trump's popularity continues to flounder. There is now even a perceptible decline in his support among GOP voters. Key problems for Trump have been the failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the intensification of the Mueller investigation (Chart 1). We suspect that he will try to preempt an electoral disaster in November by means of bipartisan deal-making and more orthodox policies. The government shutdown, although not entirely unexpected, undermined the view that President Trump is thinking about moderating his stance. That said, the Democrats are as much, if not more, to blame. With the Republicans in charge of Congress and the White House, it is clear that the Democrats thought that voters would ultimately see the shutdown as the GOP's fault. This was a dangerous assumption given that current polling suggests the Democrats have more to lose. One positive about the short-lived imbroglio is that it was the first government shutdown in twenty years that had little to do with government spending, whether the appropriations bill explicitly or entitlements. While immigration is an intractable issue, the disagreement between Republicans and Democrats is not about dollars. This is good news for the markets as it means that more spending will likely be necessary to grease the wheels of compromise. Our mantra continues to be that the political path of least resistance will lead towards profligacy. While the media's focus is on domestic politics, the real risks remain in the international arena. The two are connected. As political science theory teaches us, policymakers often play "two-level games," with the domestic arena influencing what is possible in the international one. As Donald Trump loses political capital on the domestic front, his options for affecting policy will become constrained. However, the U.S. constitution places almost no constraints on the president when it comes to foreign policy. To this arena we turn, starting with China-U.S. relations and the other potential risks in Asia (the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan). We also briefly turn to Iran and NAFTA. What binds all these risks is that it is essentially up to President Trump whether they become market-relevant or not. Korean Diplomacy Is On Track In mid-September North Korean tensions peaked (Chart 2).2 Leader Kim Jong Un chose to demonstrate known missile capabilities rather than escalate the crisis. Chart 2Markets Have Called Kim's Bluff Markets Have Called Kim's Bluff Markets Have Called Kim's Bluff Chart 3North Korea Is Running Out Of Cash North Korea Is Running Out Of Cash North Korea Is Running Out Of Cash We expected this choice given Pyongyang's considerable military constraints. Kim is a rational actor following his father Kim Jong Il's nuclear negotiations playbook.3 Just as brinkmanship reached new highs, Kim Jong Un declared victory and offered to play nice. Specifically, he launched his most advanced missile yet on November 28 (the Hwasong-15) and immediately thereafter North Korean state media declared that North Korea has "finally realized the great historic cause of completing the state nuclear force," complete with a fireworks celebration in Pyongyang.4 Kim confirmed this message personally on January 1 while offering an olive branch to South Korea for the New Year. Apparently, then, Kim is responsive to the United States' threats of devastating military retaliation against any attack. Kim is also responsive to the fact that China's President Xi Jinping has joined the U.S. coalition imposing sanctions on the North (Chart 3), squeezing North Korea's economy. The deep drop in exports to China suggests that the North will run into foreign-exchange problems if it does not adjust its posture - not to mention shortages of goods like fuel that China is gradually cutting off (Chart 4). In short, the U.S. established a credible military threat in 2017, just as it did with Iran in 2012 (Chart 5). China responded to the U.S. and established a credible economic threat of its own. Kim has de-escalated. Kim said in his New Year declaration that he would only use his nuclear deterrent if the U.S. committed an act of aggression. Rhetoric about destroying American cities is gone. Meanwhile Kim has engaged South Korea in direct negotiations, with military-to-military talks possibly to follow, and both sides will make a display of friendship at the Olympic Games in South Korea in February. Chart 4China Is Enforcing Sanctions China Is Enforcing Sanctions China Is Enforcing Sanctions Chart 5Credible Threat Cycle: North Korea Mirrors Iran Watching Five Risks Watching Five Risks While our view that diplomacy will reduce tensions is on track, we caution that the underlying disagreement is driven by North Korea's weapon capabilities and remains unresolved. The North Korean issue is not a red herring and the diplomatic route may continue to be bumpy from time to time.5 Markets could still be rattled by surprise North Korean provocations. Nevertheless, we do not expect a replay of the 2017 level of "fire and fury" that caused the U.S. 10-year treasury yield to drop from 2.31% to 2.05% between June and September 2017. If the North should jerk back toward a belligerent posture and decisively throw away this opportunity for diplomacy, then we will watch closely to determine whether its provocations truly alter the status quo and whether the U.S. shows any sign of greater willingness to respond with force. Otherwise we will simply monitor the diplomatic talks and watch for any signs of internal stress in North Korea as global sanctions tighten.6 Bottom Line: Korean risks remain market-relevant as the crisis is not resolved and talks are just beginning. Nevertheless, diplomacy is taking shape. We remain long the Korean two-year government bond versus the ten-year on the back of global trends and continued de-escalation. China-U.S. Relations May Sour Anyway Over the past year we have warned clients that U.S.-China tensions are the fundamental source of geopolitical risk globally and in Asia Pacific; that North Korea is a derivative of this fact; and that China's cooperation in policing North Korea would only temporarily dissuade the Trump administration from imposing punitive measures on China over trade. Despite China's assistance with North Korea, Trump will be driven by domestic American politics to slap tariffs on China in addition to those levied on January 22.7 First, Trump is committed to an "America First" trade policy and to economic nationalist voters. Thus he may need to show more muscle against China ahead of the midterm elections. This is particularly true for the key rust-belt states that handed him the election in 2016, where four Democratic senators' seats are in competition in November (not to mention nine other senate seats that could be swayed for similar reasons) (Chart 6). It is politically embarrassing to Trump that China racked up its largest trade surplus ever with the U.S. in his first year in office and is on track to continue racking up surpluses (Chart 7). While Beijing has vowed to open up market access and import more goods and services, these promises have yet to impress (Chart 8). Chart 6Trump's Base Expects Protectionism Trump's Base Expects Protectionism Trump's Base Expects Protectionism Chart 7China's Exports To U.S. Are Growing... China's Exports To U.S. Are Growing... China's Exports To U.S. Are Growing... Administrative rulings on several trade disputes early this year will give Trump ample opportunity to take additional trade action against China. The critical question, however, is whether Trump will continue to focus on item-by-item trade remedies (perhaps at an accelerated pace), or whether he goes beyond previous administrations and demands that China make progress on structural and systemic issues. The latter is more politically difficult and would have greater macro consequences. The U.S. has recently suggested that it made a mistake by bringing China into the WTO. This comes after the December WTO meeting in which the administration was able to secure a joint statement with Japan and Europe that increased the pressure on China.8 At the same time, Trump is weighing a significant decision (due by August, but possible any day now) on China's alleged systemic intellectual property theft, which Trump says is likely to require a "fine" (penalty). And comments by White House officials suggest that the administration may be going after China's promotion of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) as well as forced technology transfers (Chart 9).9 These are structural demands on China that will create much bigger frictions than tariffs on a few sub-sectors. Chart 8...While Imports Remain Tepid ...While Imports Remain Tepid ...While Imports Remain Tepid Chart 9Foreign Firms Forced To Transfer Tech Foreign Firms Forced To Transfer Tech Foreign Firms Forced To Transfer Tech Second, assuming that the U.S. and international community reach some kind of deal to reduce Korean tensions over the next six-to-eighteen months - for instance, a missile-test moratorium and corresponding easing of sanctions. It is likely still to be a complicated and ugly deal, as Pyongyang has no intention of giving up its nuclear and missile capabilities. The U.S. will have to make unpopular compromises with a rogue regime, comparable to the Iranian nuclear deal of 2015. The deal will leave a bitter taste in Trump's mouth and the administration will likely blame China for failing to prevent the North from achieving its nuclear status. It will rotate to address other long-standing disagreements with China, and may well look for compensation for Korea by taking a harder line on trade. Bottom Line: Korean diplomacy may delay or soften Trump's trade policies but cannot change his domestic political calculus. The Trump administration is more, not less, likely to impose further punitive trade measures on China as the midterm election draws near. We expect Chinese equity volatility to remain high. We are closing our recommendation to go long the CBOE China ETF Volatility Index, which has appreciated by 26.5%. This is not an investable index but an indicator of volatility in ETFs. A Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis? The rumor is going around that China and Taiwan are on the verge of a "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis." Clients all over the world - from Hong Kong to San Francisco to Toronto - are asking us about cross-strait tensions and the risk of war. As we go to press, Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen has just publicly acknowledged that war is possible. Taiwan could indeed be a geopolitical "black swan." It was one of our top five black swans for 2016,10 and several extraordinary events that year suggested that our concerns are warranted: China cut off all communication with the island; the Taiwanese navy accidentally fired a missile towards the mainland on the Communist Party's birthday; and a U.S. president-elect spoke directly with a Taiwanese president for the first time since 1979, creating an uproar in Beijing.11 Today, in the wake of Xi Jinping's concentration of power at the nineteenth National Party Congress,12 and Beijing's heavy-handed crackdown on Hong Kong throughout 2017,13 there is renewed concern that China is about to stage a major intervention to rein in Taiwan. There is even talk that China could be preparing to mount a surprise attack.14 The rumors are arising from a confluence of events. On the mainland side, Xi is personally powerful and has made it a priority to lead China into a "New Era" of greater Chinese influence globally. This means that a decision to take bolder action on Taiwan could come from individual whim rather than a collective decision within the party (which would tend to maintain the status quo). Xi has also taken personal control of the military through promotions, and reasserted that the "party controls the gun," making it less likely that he would meet institutional resistance in any major foreign policy initiative. Finally, Xi has hardened Communist Party policies toward Taiwan, reflected in increased military drills, controversial new air traffic routes, and tougher language in the five-year policy blueprint that he presented to the party congress. On the Taiwanese side, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which is the party that leans toward independence from the mainland, dominates the country's politics. The DPP not only won the presidency but also won legislative control for the first time in the January 2016 election.15 The DPP is also the leading party on lower levels of government. And young Taiwanese people increasingly identify as exclusively Taiwanese.16 While President Tsai has been relatively pragmatic so far, her party has fewer domestic political constraints than in the past - leaving room for the party's more radical side to have more influence or for Tsai to overreach. Internationally, Tsai has allies in Trump and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan - both nationalists who favor Taiwan and harbor deep suspicions about the reviving communism emanating from Beijing. Hence we still see Taiwan as a potential black swan event in the coming years. However, we would put a near 0% subjective probability on the likelihood that China will spring a massive surprise attack in the near future. Why? Xi is not yet breaking the status quo: Xi has not yet shown himself to be a reckless revisionist. China's foreign policy assertiveness is a gradual process that began in the mid-2000s - it traces the country's growing economic importance and need for supply-line security (Chart 10). Xi has trod carefully in both the East and South China Seas, and both of these strategic thrusts are connected with China's security vis-à-vis Taiwan, as well as vis-à-vis the U.S. and Japan. There is no reason to think that China is ready to launch a multi-front attack against the combined forces of the U.S., Taiwan, Japan, and the rest of the American alliance system. North Korea's new missile capabilities do not tip the scales in China's favor either. Incidentally, even Xi's tougher rhetoric at the party congress echoed the 2005 "Anti-Secession" law, so that more evidence would be needed to conclude that a drastic policy shift is under way.17 China may even want to avoid antagonizing the Taiwanese ahead of local elections later this year. Trump is not yet breaking the status quo: Trump's Asia policy has been consistent with that of previous administrations.18 And Trump's moves to assure Taiwan of U.S. commitment to its defense are status quo. After all, the Democratic Party is historically more enthusiastic about supplying Taiwan with arms (Chart 11). Trump has assured Xi Jinping he will adhere to the "One China" policy; and it is rarely observed that Trump's controversial phone call with Taiwanese President Tsai followed the first-ever tête-à-tête between a Chinese president and his Taiwanese counterpart.19 As long as Trump upholds the norm, the U.S. remains committed to Taiwan's defense yet will refuse to let Taiwan lock it into excessive tensions with China. This policy actually reduces the probability of a miscalculation by Beijing or Taipei. By contrast, the probability would rise if China and Taiwan perceived that the U.S. was withdrawing from its commitments, as Taiwan might want to suck the U.S. back in, or China might see Taiwan as vulnerable. Incidentally, if the Trump administration is not rushing into conflict over Taiwan, then Japan's Abe administration certainly is not. Tsai is not yet breaking the status quo: President Tsai has so far played a pragmatic role. While she is dissatisfied with the "1992 Consensus," which holds that there is only "One China" but two different interpretations of it, she has not rejected the status quo, and she has not implied that Taiwan should be its own state (either of which would cause a huge reaction from the mainland). And there is no serious prospect of a popular independence referendum ("Twexit"?) on the horizon, which would assuredly prompt Beijing to aggressive measures. Chart 10China's Assertiveness Grows With Trade China's Assertiveness Grows With Trade China's Assertiveness Grows With Trade Chart 11Trump Has Not Changed Status Quo Trump Has Not Changed Status Quo Trump Has Not Changed Status Quo In order for us to increase the probability of a Taiwanese war, we would have to see one of these three players start behaving in a way that truly violates the status quo that has prevailed since the U.S. and China normalized relations in 1979. The real risk for Taiwan comes if the U.S. and China fail to arrest the secular decline in relations that began in the mid-2000s. A serious misunderstanding between these two would have a range of global repercussions, and could lead to miscalculation over Taiwan. Unfortunately, a miscalculation is conceivable within Trump's and Tsai's terms, which last until 2020. Consider the following scenario as an example. The U.S. is currently demanding that China assist with the North Korean problem, and may believe that it can compensate China by delaying any punitive trade measures. However, China may be expecting something else - it may be expecting the U.S. to downgrade relations with Taiwan. (In other words, China says, we diminish the North Korean threat to the U.S. mainland, you diminish the Taiwanese threat to the Chinese mainland.) Instead of giving China what it wants, the U.S. may provide Taiwan with new weapon capabilities in response to China's militarization of the South China Sea. In this way, U.S.-China competition could shift to the Taiwan Strait in the aftermath of any Korean settlement. In the meantime, we see Taiwan as vulnerable to China's discrete economic sanctions, which China has not hesitated to use in this or other diplomatic spats (Chart 12).20 Chart 12Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Bottom Line: What is clear to us is that U.S.-China tensions continue to grow and Taiwan could become more frightened, or more emboldened, in the "security dilemma" between them. But until we see signs that any of the relevant powers are actively attempting to break the status quo, we see war as a distant prospect. More likely, today's robust trade between China and Taiwan could suffer a hit due to politics, and tit-for-tat cross-strait sanctions could be imposed. We are closing our tactical trade of long Philippine peso / short Taiwanese dollar for a loss of 5%. This was a speculative play on the divergence in diplomatic relations with China. Taiwan has allowed its currency to rise to avoid antagonizing President Trump, while China and Taiwan have so far avoided the diplomatic crisis that we expect eventually to occur, as outlined above. Iran: Could America Pivot Back To The Middle East? BCA's Geopolitical Strategy correctly forecast the U.S.-Iran détente two years before the nuclear deal was agreed in the summer of 2015.21 At the heart of this call was our read of global forces, namely the paradigm shift in the global distribution of power away from American hegemony towards multipolarity (Chart 13). As the U.S. pivoted its geopolitical focus towards China, Iran became a thorn in its side, forcing it to maintain considerable presence in the Middle East. Without a formal détente with Iran - of which the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is the fulcrum - such a pivot to Asia would be extremely difficult. On January 12, President Trump imperiled our forecast by threatening not to waive sanctions against Iran the next time they come due (May 12).22 To avoid that fate, President Trump wants to see three major changes to the JCPOA: An indefinite extension of limits on Iran's uranium enrichment; Immediate access for inspectors to all nuclear sites; Adding new provisions to limit development of ballistic missiles. These additions are likely to kill the deal, although Trump appears to have directed his comments to the European signatories only. This could potentially create a loophole in the crisis, by allowing Europe to agree to new thresholds for re-imposing sanctions outside of the deal's framework. Pressure from the U.S. president comes at a delicate time for Iran. Domestic unrest has been ongoing since December 28. Although protests have largely fizzled out, they have reopened the rift between the clerical regime, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and moderate President Hassan Rouhani. In a surprising statement, President Rouhani said, "it would be a misrepresentation and also an insult to Iranian people to say they only had economic demands ... people had economic, political, and social demands." He went on to say that "We cannot pick a lifestyle and tell two generations after us to live like that ... The views of the young generation about life and the world is different than ours." We agree with President Rouhani. First, 49% of Iran's population is under the age of 30 (Chart 14). Meanwhile, the Supreme Leader and the twelve members of the "Guardian Council" - which has the power to veto parliamentary legislation and to vet presidential candidates - have an average age of 73.23 As with the 2009 Green Revolution, which was brutally repressed, Iran's demographics provide the kindling for a potential regime change. Chart 13American Hegemony Ended,##br## Global Multipolarity Ascending American Hegemony Ended, Global Multipolarity Ascending American Hegemony Ended, Global Multipolarity Ascending Chart 14Iran's Youth:##br## A National Security Risk Iran's Youth: A National Security Risk Iran's Youth: A National Security Risk Second, Iran's economy is clearly not the main reason for the angst. While unemployment is elevated at 12%, it is only slightly above its two-decade average. Meanwhile, inflation is well below its average, with real GDP growth at 5.8% by the end of 2016 (Chart 15). Considering that inflation peaked at 44%, and real GDP growth bottomed at -16% during the most severe sanctions, the current situation is not dire. What has irked the population is that while the private sector suffered throughout the sanctions ordeal, government spending remained elevated (Chart 16). This is not merely because of automatic stabilizers amidst a deep recession. Instead, Iran has elevated its military spending as new geopolitical opportunities presented themselves in the region (Chart 17). It currently spends more on its military as a percent of GDP than any peer in the region (save for Saudi Arabia, its chief rival). It is openly engaged in military conflict in both Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, while it continues to support allies militarily, economically, and diplomatically across the region, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon. Chart 15Economic Situation Poor But Not Dire Economic Situation Poor But Not Dire Economic Situation Poor But Not Dire Chart 16Government Felt No Pain During Sanctions Government Felt No Pain During Sanctions Government Felt No Pain During Sanctions Chart 17Iran Overspends On Military Iran Overspends On Military Iran Overspends On Military Third, Chart 18 shows that Iran is becoming "dangerously wealthy." Both the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the 2009 Green Revolution occurred at, or near, the peak of Iran's wealth. The 25 years preceding each event saw the country's GDP per capita triple and double, respectively. Chart 18Wealth Is Also A National Security Risk Wealth Is Also A National Security Risk Wealth Is Also A National Security Risk Political scientists Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel have empirically shown that wealth changes people's basic values and beliefs, from political and economic beliefs to religion and sexual mores.24 This is the process of modernization. Economic development gives rise to cultural changes that make individual autonomy, gender equality, and even democracy likely. Iran has essentially come full circle since 1979. We suspect that the conservative hardliners in the regime understand the revolutionary context well. After all, they were themselves in their 30s when they rebelled against the old corrupt regime. As such, they will welcome President Trump's pressure as it gives them a raison d'être and an opportunity to undermine the moderate President Rouhani who staked his presidency on the success of the nuclear deal. The risk in this scenario is that the domestic arena of the ongoing "two-level game" will prevent both the U.S. and Iran from backing away from a confrontation. Iranian hardliners, who control part of the armed forces, could lash out in the Persian Gulf, either by rhetorically threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz - as they did repeatedly in 2011 - or by boarding foreign vessels in international waters.25 Geopolitical tensions would therefore serve to undermine President Rouhani's embrace of diplomacy and to de-legitimize any further protests, which would be deemed treasonous. For Trump, a belligerent Iranian response to his pressure would in turn legitimize his suspicion of the nuclear deal. What about the global constraints of multipolarity that compelled the U.S. to seek a détente with Iran in order to pivot to Asia? They remain in place. As such, President Trump's simultaneous pressure on Iran and China runs counter to U.S. strategy, given its limited material resources and diplomatic bandwidth. It is therefore unsustainable. What we cannot forecast, however, is whether the White House will realize this before or after it commits the U.S. to a serious confrontation. Bottom Line: Domestic political calculus in both Iran and the U.S. make further Tehran-Washington tensions likely. The two countries are playing a dangerous two-level game that could spiral out of control in the Middle East. For the time being, however, we expect merely a minor geopolitical risk premium to seep into the energy markets, supporting our bullish BCA House View on oil prices. NAFTA: Of Global Relevance On a recent client trip through Toronto and Ottawa we were unsurprisingly asked a lot of questions regarding the fate of NAFTA. The deal is not just of importance to Canada but to the world. It is a bellwether for our low-conviction view that President Trump is going to moderate to the middle on policy issues ahead of the midterm elections. We encourage clients to read our November Special Report titled "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism."26 In it, we cautioned clients that the probability of NAFTA being abrogated by Trump is around 50%. Why so high? Because there are few constraints: Economic: The U.S. economy has been largely unaffected by NAFTA (Chart 19) and would likely experience no disruption if Trump abrogated the deal and began negotiations on bilateral trade agreements with Canada and Mexico. Political: Investors and the media are overstating the importance of the Midwest automotive and agricultural sectors to Trump's base. Trump's Midwest voters knew well his view on NAFTA when they voted for him. In fact, they voted for him because of his NAFTA view. Investors have to realize that Americans do not support unbridled free trade (Chart 20). Constitutional/Legal: There is an argument that Congress could stop President Trump from withdrawing from NAFTA, but the only way to do so would be to nullify his executive orders or legislate a law that prevents the president from withdrawing. However, given the point from above, Congress is afraid to go against the median voter. The immediate implications for investors are that both the CAD and MXN could face downside pressure following the Montreal round of negotiations ending January 29. Both fell by 1.2% and 1.9% respectively in the week of trading following the third round of negotiations in September (Chart 21). Chart 19U.S. Economy:##br## Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA Chart 20America Belongs To##br## The Anti-Globalization Bloc Watching Five Risks Watching Five Risks Chart 21NAFTA Negotiations##br## Are FX-Relevant NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant More broadly, NAFTA is an important bellwether for the direction of Trump's policy. He has practically no constraints to abrogating the deal. If his intention is to renegotiate two separate deals - or simply reactivate the 1988 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement - then it makes sense for him to end NAFTA and score political points at home. As such, if he does not, it will indicate that the White House is not truly populist but has been captured by the Republican establishment. Bottom Line: If President Trump does not abrogate NAFTA, which comes with few constraints, then he has clearly decided to throw his lot in with the U.S. establishment, which has consistently been more pro-trade than the American voter. This would be highly bullish for investors as it would suggest that the (geo)political risk premium would dissipate going forward. In fact, the decision on NAFTA could be a broad indicator for future decisions on trade relations with China, Iranian sanctions, and policy writ large. For if Trump sides with the establishment on an issue with minimal constraints, then he is more likely to do so on issues with greater constraints. This month, we are closing our 2/30 curve steepener recommendation, which is down 90bps since inception. The two alternative ways we have played rising U.S. growth and inflation prospects - shorting the 10-year Treasury vs. the Bunds and shorting the Fed Funds December 2018 futures - are in the money, 27bps and 46bs respectively. We are keeping both open for now. In addition, we are closing our long French industrial equities relative to German industrials for a gain of 10.26%. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 The playbook is really Nikita Khruschev's. 4 Please see "NK celebrates completion of nuke arsenal with fireworks," The Korea Herald, December 2, 2017, available at www.koreaherald.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Trump decided to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machine, mostly affecting China and South Korea, on January 22. On steel and aluminum, Trump has until late April to decide, i.e. 90 days after reports from the Commerce Department due Jan. 15 and Jan. 22. Please see Andrew Restuccia and Doug Palmer, "White House preparing for trade crackdown," Politico, dated January 7, 2018, available at www.politico.com. 8 The U.S. Trade Representative's latest edition of an annual report to Congress over China's compliance with World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments declares that the U.S. "erred in supporting China's entry into the WTO on terms that have proven to be ineffective in securing China's embrace of an open, market-oriented trade regime." Please see "Joint Statement by the United States, European Union and Japan at MC11," December 2017, and "USTR Releases Annual Reports on China's and Russia's WTO Compliance," dated January 2018, available at ustr.gov. 9 Please see Lesley Wroughton, "Trump administration says U.S. mistakenly backed China WTO accession in 2001," Reuters, January 19, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see "China cuts communication with Taiwan," Al Jazeera, June 25, 2016, available at www.aljazeera.com; "Taiwan mistakenly fires supersonic missile killing one," BBC, July 1, 2016, available at www.bbc.com; Mark Landler and David E. Sanger, "Trump Speaks With Taiwan's Leader, An Affront To China," New York Times, December 2, 2016, available at www.nytimes.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see "U.S.-China: From Rivalry To Proxy Wars" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Xi Jinping is rumored to have told Communist Party leaders in 2012 that the country would invade Taiwan by 2020. Please see Ian Easton, The Chinese Invasion Threat: Taiwan's Defense and American Strategy in Asia (Project 2049 Institute, 2017). 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan's Election: How Dire Will The Straits Get?" dated January 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 National Chengchi University's long-running data series on Taiwanese identity shows that 58% of Taiwanese people identify as Taiwanese, and 70% under the age of 40. However, 77.5% of twenty-year olds also support the political status quo, i.e. do not seek political independence. Please see Marie-Alice McLean-Dreyfus, "Taiwan: Is there a political generation gap?" dated June 9, 2017, available at lowyinstitute.org. 17 Please see Richard C. Bush, "What Xi Jinping Said About Taiwan At The 19th Party Congress," Brookings Institution, October 19, 2017, available at www.brookings.edu. 18 Even the North Korea threat portfolio was bequeathed to him from former President Barack Obama, and it is being managed largely by the Pentagon and navy. 19 In other words, the incoming Trump administration implied that if China's leader Xi Jinping can speak directly to Taiwan's leader Ma Ying-jeou, then U.S. President Donald Trump can speak to Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. This is a sign that alliances are alive and well, and that there are tensions, but it is not a harbinger of war. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" dated July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 The JCPOA did not actually legislate the removal of sanctions against Iran as the Obama administration was unable to get the Republican-controlled Senate to agree. Instead, the president has to use his executive authority to continue waiving sanctions against Iran. 23 That is only two years away from the average life expectancy in Iran. 24 Please see Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 25 Iranian military personnel - almost always the Navy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards - seized British Royal Navy personnel in 2007 and U.S. Navy personnel in 2016. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Slower global demand growth, coupled with surging production from the U.S. shales and higher OPEC 2.0 production, risks reversing the progress made in draining global commercial oil storage and tanking prices in 2019.1 Our updated balances modelling is in agreement with the backwardation in forward Brent and WTI curves, but, if anything, indicates the backwardation should be more pronounced: We are forecasting Brent and WTI prices next year will average $55 and $53/bbl, respectively, vs. $62.80/bbl and $57.40/bbl average prices for 2019's forward curves. For 2018, we are maintaining our $67 and $63/bbl expectation for Brent and WTI, although our modelling indicates higher prices are a distinct possibility, given our fundamental assumptions of falling supply and rising demand this year (Chart of the Week). Energy: Overweight. We liquidated our May and July Brent and WTI $55 vs. $60/bbl call spreads last week with gains of 110.1% and 129.0%. We will be liquidating our Dec/18 Brent and WTI $55 vs. $60/bbl call spreads at tonight's close; they were up 62.3% and 82.1% as of Tuesday. We remain long Jul/18 vs. Dec/18 WTI (up 47.4%), and long the S&P GSCI (up 8.5%), expecting backwardation. We will get long $55 Brent Puts vs. short $50 Brent Puts in 4Q19 at tonight's close. Base Metals: Neutral. We continue to expect base metals to remain well supported in 1H18 by environmental reforms in China, and supply uncertainty around contract renegotiations at the copper mines. The global expansion underpinning demand will compensate for slower Chinese growth in 2H18. Precious Metals: Neutral. Our long gold portfolio hedge is up 8.5% since inception in May/17. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Soybean markets rallied following last week's USDA WASDE report, but grains fell amid data indicating these markets will remain oversupplied. Feature If there is one truth in commodity markets it is this: The best cure for high prices is high prices, and vice versa. This is being dramatically demonstrated by OPEC 2.0 in its collective action to remove 1.8mm b/d of production from the market following disastrously low prices in 2015 - 16. Higher prices in 4Q17 and 1H18 oil futures are incentivizing a surge in U.S. shale output, and will give OPEC 2.0 comfort in slowly feeding output taken offline at the beginning of 2017 back into the market in 2H18 and 2019 (Chart 2). Higher prices and tightening monetary conditions globally will slow the rate of growth in demand next year (Chart 3). Chart of the WeekFundamentals##BR##Support Oil In 2018 Fundamentals Support Oil In 2018 Fundamentals Support Oil In 2018 Chart 2Non-OPEC Production##BR##Will Surge Non-OPEC Production Will SurgeV Non-OPEC Production Will SurgeV Chart 3Strong Consumption Growth In 2018,##BR##Tempered By Higher Prices In 2019 Strong Consumption Growth In 2018, Tempered By Higher Prices In 2019 Strong Consumption Growth In 2018, Tempered By Higher Prices In 2019 Given these fundamental inputs, we expect to see Brent averaging $55/bbl next year, and WTI averaging $53/bbl next year. Our forecast is highly uncertain, given the actual evolution of prices will, once again, depend on actions taken by OPEC 2.0 and the forward guidance provided by its leadership, KSA and Russia. Our forecast for 2018 - $67/bbl for Brent and $63/bbl for WTI - remains unchanged. If anything, our unconstrained models (Chart of the Week) have more upside risk than our forecast suggests, largely from falling production and surging demand - not to mention unplanned production outages. Looking to the end of 2019 from today, the backwardation we expect is greater than what is being priced into the Brent and WTI forward curves presently. Growth In U.S. Shales Dominates Non-OPEC Gains We are expecting U.S. crude oil production growth will dominate the increase in non-OPEC output in 2018 and 2019 (Chart 2, top panel). U.S. shale-oil output rises by 970k b/d and another 1.18mm b/d, respectively, this year and in 2019. By our reckoning, this will lift total U.S. crude oil production to 10.22mm b/d this year, a record level of output, and to 11.44mm b/d on average next year. Total U.S. crude and liquids output therefore rises from just under 17mm b/d in 2018 to 18.5mm b/d by the end of 2019. If our estimates are correct, the U.S. will join Russia in producing more than 11mm b/d of crude oil next year, and may even exceed it. Russia is expected to raise production slightly. As one of the putative leaders of OPEC 2.0, we expect Russia to maintain its 300k b/d production cut in 1H18, which will keep its overall liquids production steady at ~ 11.17mm b/d through June. In 2H18, Russia will gradually restore production to an average of 11.24mm b/d, reaching 11.4mm b/d by December. For 2019, we expect total Russian liquids production to average 11.35mm b/d, up ~ 140k b/d yoy. OPEC's return will be led by the Cartel's Gulf producers, which are expected to raise crude production 450k b/d this year and 350k b/d next year (Chart 2, bottom panel). Total production in Gulf OPEC states will reach 25.25mm b/d on average in 2019. This will, of course, be dominated by KSA, which we expect will lift crude production to ~ 10.36mm b/d in 2H18 after holding crude output steady at ~ 10mm b/d in 1H18 over-delivering vs. its quota under the OPEC 2.0 Agreement. For 2019, we expect KSA to maintain production above 10.1mm b/d.2 Non-Gulf OPEC producers, on the other hand, will see their production fall 140k b/d this year, and another 240k b/d next year, leaving it at 7.49mm b/d on average in 2019, in our estimation. The contribution of these states to the OPEC 2.0 production cuts has been "managing" their respective decline curves. It is highly unlikely they will see production surge following the expiration of the OPEC 2.0 agreement at the end of this year. Overall, we expect global crude and liquids production to reach 100mm b/d this year, and 102.2mm b/d next year (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (mm b/d) Lower Oil Prices In 2019 Will Test OPEC 2.0 Lower Oil Prices In 2019 Will Test OPEC 2.0 Oil Demand Surges This Year, But Slows In 2019 The global economic expansion will lift oil demand above 100mm b/d this year to 100.3mm b/d. This will be led, as always, by non-OECD growth, which we expect to increase 1.24mm b/d this year to 52.8mm b/d (Chart 3, top panel). DM demand - i.e., OECD consumption - will increase 440k b/d this year, to 47.5mm b/d, based on our estimates. Overall global demand rises 1.68mm b/d this year, by our reckoning (Chart 3). We expect tighter financial conditions this year and next will, with the lags typical of monetary policy, slow the rate of growth in oil demand next year. This will be delivered by tightening monetary policy, led by the U.S. Fed, and a mild recession next year, most likely in 2H19. We expect global demand to grow 1.57mm b/d next year, rising to just under 102mm b/d. EM demand will grow 1.21mm b/d, while DM demand will be up 360k b/d next year. Tightening Balances Will Reverse In 2H18 The yeoman effort put forth by OPEC 2.0 in reducing output and draining commercial inventories globally will reach its apotheosis by the end of 1H18 (Charts 4). Thereafter, as production grows and demand begins to slow, our balances indicate inventories will start to grow again (Chart 5). Chart 4Supply-Demand Balances##BR##No Longer Tightening In 2019 ... Supply-Demand Balances No Longer Tightening In 2019... Supply-Demand Balances No Longer Tightening In 2019... Chart 5... Leading To##BR##Inventory Accumulation ... Leading To Inventory Accumulation ... Leading To Inventory Accumulation Markets likely will start focusing on the implications of OPEC 2.0 returning production to the market and the surge in shale in 2H18 and during 2019. Non-forecastable events notwithstanding - e.g., a breakdown in Venezuela's production and exports - markets will be looking to OPEC 2.0 leadership for guidance on how the coalition will manage member-state production from 2H18 forward. If the OPEC 2.0 coalition is allowed to dissolve - something we do not expect - and a production free-for-all resumes similar to that of 2015 - 16, another round of supply destruction, brought about by lower prices, likely will ensue. This would greatly restrict E&P and services companies' access to capital, should it occur, and would, once again, imperil the economies of OPEC 2.0. In addition, because such volatility would discourage investment once again, it would set up a powerful price rally in the early 2020s following the attendant collapse in capex and E&P spending, as occurred in the previous down-cycle. We doubt this is the desired outcome of the OPEC 2.0 leadership, particularly KSA, as the Kingdom will be looking to IPO Saudi Aramco later this year to fund its Vision 2030 diversification efforts. We also doubt this is the desired outcome of Russia, given the economic pain it endured in the 2015 - 16 episode. More Frequent OPEC 2.0 Guidance Expected Given these considerations, we expect KSA and Russia to increase the frequency of forward guidance, directing market participants toward a preferred price band. Right now, this looks like a $50 to $60/bbl range - the 2018 forecast given by Russia's Energy Minister Alexander Novak earlier this week.3 It would be incumbent on OPEC 2.0 leadership to guide markets to expect production and inventory responses consistent with such guidance. We think the combination of OPEC 2.0 production restraint and the powerful synchronized global growth already in place puts Energy Minister Novak's guidance out of range for this year, and we are sticking with our forecasts for Brent and WTI. However, beginning in 2H18, a 2019 Brent forecast in Novak's range appears reasonable, based on the fundamentals discussed above. And, our WTI forecast of $53/bbl also is reasonable, given the average marginal cost of producing in the most prolific fields in the U.S. are at or below $50/bbl, according to the Dallas Fed's periodic Energy Survey.4 We believe the massive drawdown in global oil inventories to be the first step in a longer-term strategy by OPEC 2.0 countries. Lower OECD commercial inventory levels will diminish their shock-absorbing capacity, leading to a higher responsiveness of oil prices to supply-demand shocks. This will allow the coalition to exert greater control over oil prices via rapid, flexible storage adjustments and spare capacity management. Therefore, this year's out-of-range prices will be tolerated by Russia and KSA to achieve their optimal level of global inventories. A $50-to-$60/bbl Brent range for OPEC 2.0 would be consistent with a longer-term strategy to maximize the period of time hydrocarbons are the primary transportation fuel in the world. This is the only way to achieve the development goals set out by leaders of various oil-exporting states seeking to diversify the economic underpinnings of these economies. To do so, they have to keep oil-based transportation competitive for decades. Too much volatility - i.e., frequent excursions between very high and very low prices - will severely limit the access to capital these societies need to pull off this diversification. Managing production in a way that limits this volatility and keeps oil competitive in transport markets therefore is critical. Bottom Line: High prices will cause crude oil production to surge this year and next, particularly in the U.S. shales, and demand growth to slow. We expect Brent prices to average $67/bbl this year and $55/bbl next year. WTI prices will average $63/bbl this year and $53/bbl next year. We expect OPEC 2.0 to increase the frequency of its forward guidance - and to follow through on production and inventory adjustment in a manner that supports a desired price range for Brent prices in 2019 and into the 2020s. Right now, that range looks like $50 to $60/bbl. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is a name we coined to describe the oil-producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, which was formed at the end of 2016 to rein in out-of-control global oil production by cutting production some 1.4 to 1.5mm b/d last year (vs. a target of 1.8mm b/d). The coalition has been remarkably successful in maintaining production discipline in 2017 and extending their deal to the end of 2018 with an option to review quotas in June. We expect OPEC 2.0 to gradually return production taken off the market over the course of 2H18, which will, by next year, most likely reverse the draws seen in global inventories. 2 KSA's production should lift next year as pipeline repairs at its giant Manifa field are completed. Corrosion problems took some 300k of 900k b/d total production offline. In addition, there is another 500k b/d of capacity offline in the Neutral Zone shared with Kuwait. KSA's capacity likely will remain ~ 11.7mm b/d, versus its historical 12.5mm level, but as Energy Intelligence notes, it will have to balance actual production with spare capacity for the next year or so. Please see "A Headache for Aramco," published July 2017 by Energy Intelligence on its website. 3 Please see "CORRECTED-UPDATE 5-Brent oil falls by $1 but demand underpins near $70/barrel," published by uk.reuters.com on January 16, 2018. 4 In its December 2017 Dallas Fed Energy Survey, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas reported the WTI price shale operators needed to profitably drill a new well in Texas and Oklahoma averaged $49/bbl (simple, unweighted survey average). The lowest cost was in the Permian Midland formation ($46/bbl) and the highest costs was in so-called Other U.S. (shale) at $55/bbl. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Lower Oil Prices In 2019 Will Test OPEC 2.0 Lower Oil Prices In 2019 Will Test OPEC 2.0 Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Lower Oil Prices In 2019 Will Test OPEC 2.0 Lower Oil Prices In 2019 Will Test OPEC 2.0

Highlights December's money and trade data releases were not positive, but they do not likely herald a more aggressive economic slowdown than our base case view would suggest. Conventional methods of gauging the tightness of China's monetary policy stance tend to ignore the fact that market-based interest rates have already increased over the past year. Meaningful increases to the benchmark lending rate are therefore unwarranted barring a significant improvement in China's growth momentum. Despite several identifiable risk factors, investors should remain overweight Chinese investable stocks versus the emerging market and global benchmarks. Feature Several highly-watched Chinese data releases are being published as we go to press, including Q4 GDP growth, and December retail sales, industrial production, and fixed asset investment. We are inclined to agree with Bloomberg's consensus expectations that these series will come in flat-to-modestly down, given our base case view of a benign, controlled economic slowdown. While we cannot rule out the potential for significantly positive surprises from this data, our November 30 Special Report noted in detail that these types of activity indicators tend to lag (or are not correlated with) the Li Keqiang index, which we have shown continues to act as an important predictor of the growth in investable EPS and nominal import growth.1 As such, the series in today's release do not rank highly on our list of important data to watch over the coming 6-12 months. Instead, we remain focused on the components of our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator, as well as the evolution of the relationship between the Li Keqiang index and the growth in earnings and imports. December: A Bad Month For Money & Trade Chart 1A Non-Trivial Deceleration##br## In Money Growth A Non-Trivial Deceleration In Money Growth A Non-Trivial Deceleration In Money Growth Among the December data released in the first half of this month, the most important series in our view have been the Caixin Manufacturing PMI, imports/exports, and the money supply. The PMI was a bright spot; after having decelerated since August, the index unexpectedly increased from 50.8 in November to 51.5 in December. The Caixin Services PMI also surprised to the upside. The year-over-year (YoY) growth rate of nominal imports, however, fell sharply in December, and significantly missed expectations. In addition, supply of money (measured either as M2 or BCA-defined M3) also fell on a YoY basis, with the 3-month annualized rate of change declining meaningfully (Chart 1). Given that M2 and M3 are components of our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator, and that nominal imports directly impact China's contribution to global growth, this raises the question of whether December's economic data suggest that China is slowing at a more aggressive pace than we expect. For now, our answer is no. Several points are worth considering: China's trade data is highly volatile, and a smoothed version of nominal import growth is behaving exactly as the Li Keqiang index suggests that it should (Chart 2). In addition, while import growth significantly missed the street's expectations, negative surprises of this magnitude have frequently occurred in the past (Chart 3). Chart 2Despite A Weak December, ##br##Smoothed Nominal Imports Look As They Should Despite A Weak December, Smoothed Nominal Imports Look As They Should Despite A Weak December, Smoothed Nominal Imports Look As They Should Chart 3Negative Import Surprises ##br##Are Fairly Common Negative Import Surprises Are Fairly Common Negative Import Surprises Are Fairly Common Money supply measures form just one-third of our Li Keqiang Leading Indicator, and the other factors aren't nearly as negative as these measures imply. Chart 4 illustrates that the indicator would be considerably higher if M2 and M3 were excluded, and that the overall indicator is not falling at a sharp or aggressive pace. Even though we did not include it in our composite indicator, we noted in our November 30 Special Report that the manufacturing PMI is an important signal for the Chinese economy, so it is encouraging that it ticked higher. While 51.5 may not seem like an elevated reading when compared with developed economies, it ranks in the 91st percentile of the data since mid-2011. Export growth remained buoyant, which will provide the industrial sector with some reflationary offset. We noted in a previous report that strong export growth would likely decelerate and converge to global industrial production growth over the coming year,2 but a regression-based approach to modelling Chinese export growth suggests that it may stay strong if leading indicators of global economic activity remain robust (Chart 5). Chart 4Severely Weak Money Measures ##br##Are In Contrast To Other Indicators Severely Weak Money Measures Are In Contrast To Other Indicators Severely Weak Money Measures Are In Contrast To Other Indicators Chart 5Chinese Export Growth ##br##May Stay Strong Chinese Export Growth May Stay Strong Chinese Export Growth May Stay Strong Bottom Line: December's money and trade data releases were not positive, but they do not likely herald a more aggressive economic slowdown than our base case view would suggest. Some Approaches To Gauging The Stance Of Chinese Monetary Policy While we do not regard December's economic data as a deviation from our base case view, that view does acknowledge that a gradual, controlled slowdown is occurring. There are two drivers of this ongoing economic slowdown. The first is the past imposition of "supply side" constraints on some industrial sectors, which have been part of the government's efforts to cut excess capacity and reduce pollution. For example, we noted in our October 5 Special Report that coal, base metals and cement producers have chronically underperformed in recent years, and have also hurt the overall performance of the industrial sector.3 Similarly, capital spending in the mining sector, historically highly sensitive to moves in global metals prices, have continued to contract, despite the sharp increase in metals prices since 2016 (Chart 6). The more obvious catalyst for a slowdown in the economy is, however, the tightening in monetary policy that began in late-2016. We have strongly emphasized the importance of monetary conditions in our approach to tracking the end of China's mini-cycle, and part of the tightening in these conditions can be linked to the end of material RMB depreciation. But a variety of interest rates have also increased substantially over the past year, which has been worrying to some investors. These concerns have been magnified recently by quite a bit of hawkish rhetoric from the PBOC, including an ultimately retracted statement from a leading PBOC researcher last week that stronger economic conditions have created enough room for a hike in the benchmark one-year lending rate. The current environment naturally raises the question of what would constitute tight policy in China. Chart 7 presents two conventional methods of answering this question, both of which aim to compare the benchmark 1-year policy lending rate to a fair, neutral, or equilibrium level. The first method uses a Taylor Rule approach with the IMF's output gap, headline consumer price inflation, and the IMF's assumptions of a 6% nominal equilibrium interest rate and a 3% headline inflation target.4 The second method simply compares the benchmark lending rate to that prescribed by our BCA China Interest Rate Model, which is a proprietary indicator based on China's growth momentum relative to its recent average, Chinese inflation, U.S. interest rates, and the CNY/USD exchange rate. Chart 6Policy Constraints Weigh Heavily On ##br##Some Sectors Policy Constraints Weigh Heavily On Some Sectors Policy Constraints Weigh Heavily On Some Sectors Chart 7Conventional Methods Say The Benchmark##br## Lending Rate Should Rise... Conventional Methods Say The Benchmark Lending Rate Should Rise... Conventional Methods Say The Benchmark Lending Rate Should Rise... At first blush, Chart 7 seems to imply that a significant increase in the benchmark 1-year policy lending rate is warranted. But these approaches ignore the fact that market-based interest rates have already increased over the past year, in some cases materially. A comprehensive understanding of the framework and mechanics of China's new monetary policy era is still elusive to many investors, and is an area of ongoing research at BCA. But for now, it is important to note that the benchmark lending rate merely acts as a reference point for Chinese banks when determining the actual interest rate charged on new loans. Chart 8 highlights that the percentage of loans issued above the benchmark rate correlates strongly with, and is led by, the 3-month interbank lending rate. Given the significant increase in 3-month SHIBOR over the past year, it is not surprising that China's weighted average lending rate has recently been increasing, even though the benchmark rate has remained constant. The rise in the average lending rate has so far been moderate, with our Q4 estimate showing only a 35% cumulative retracement of the 180bps decline that occurred from 2014 - 2016. But Chart 9 illustrates what would likely occur to the average lending rate if the PBOC were to hike the benchmark rate by 50bps over the coming year, based on two different scenarios: 1) an unchanged 3-month SHIBOR rate, and 2) a 50bps rise in 3-month SHIBOR (i.e. a parallel shift with the benchmark rate). The chart makes it clear that such a move would push average lending rates above the midpoint of the 2014-2016 range, which from our perspective is a reasonable estimate of the threshold between easy and tight monetary policy. Chart 8...But This Ignores The Recent Rise##br## In Market-Based Interest Rates ...But This Ignores The Recent Rise In Market-Based Interest Rates ...But This Ignores The Recent Rise In Market-Based Interest Rates Chart 9Even Modest Hikes To The Benchmark Rate ##br##Will Create Tight Policy Even Modest Hikes To The Benchmark Rate Will Create Tight Policy Even Modest Hikes To The Benchmark Rate Will Create Tight Policy A rise into tight monetary policy territory would be exacerbated even further if the 3-month SHIBOR rate rose disproportionately to any increase in the benchmark rate, which is not a trivial risk given the extent of their rise since late-2016. In short, given that China's economy is already slowing, this analysis underscores that any meaningful increases to the benchmark rate are likely unwarranted, and would be greeted negatively by global investors were they to occur. Bottom Line: Conventional methods of gauging the tightness of China's monetary policy stance tend to ignore the fact that market-based interest rates have already increased over the past year. Meaningful increases to the benchmark lending rate are therefore unwarranted barring a significant improvement in China's growth momentum. Monetary Policy And Investment Strategy We presented a "decision tree" for Chinese stocks in our January 4 Weekly Report,5 and noted that signs of significant further tightening of monetary policy should be met with a downgrade bias towards Chinese equities. We argued that the "bark" of monetary authorities would be worse than their "bite" over the coming several months, given that growth momentum and house price appreciation has already peaked. Recent market performance suggests that global investors agree with our assessment that the PBOC will refrain from any meaningful increases to the benchmark lending rate, and that any further rise in the average lending rate will be modest. Chart 10 shows that while the performance of Chinese investable ex-tech stocks versus global ex-tech did challenge its 200-day moving average in mid-December, the selloff has been completely reversed over the past month. In addition, Chart 11 shows that bottom-up 12-month forward EPS growth expectations remain solid and net earnings revisions remain close to a seven-year high, suggesting that there is no imminent fundamental basis for a major decline in Chinese investable equity prices. Chart 10Investors Aren't Worried##br## By The Specter Of Tight Policy Investors Aren't Worried By The Specter Of Tight Policy Investors Aren't Worried By The Specter Of Tight Policy Chart 11There Is Fundamental Support ##br##For Chinese Stocks There Is Fundamental Support For Chinese Stocks There Is Fundamental Support For Chinese Stocks Accordingly, while further monetary policy tightening remains a risk to be monitored over the course of the year, our "decision tree" framework continues to suggest that investors should be overweight Chinese stocks. We regard this as a recommendation to be cautiously bullish, a stance that we will be continually evaluating over the course of the year as more information about the risk factors that we have identified presents itself. Stay tuned! Bottom Line: Despite several identifiable risk factors, investors should remain overweight Chinese investable stocks versus the emerging market and global benchmark. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability of China's Business Cycle", dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China's Economy - 2015 Vs Today (Part I): Trade", dated October 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "On A Higher Note", dated October 5, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 IMF Country Report No. 17/247, People's Republic of China : 2017 Article IV Consultation, August 8, 2017. 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The "Decision Tree" For Chinese Stocks", dated January 4, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights We are upgrading our allocation to Indian stocks from neutral to overweight within EM equity portfolios. India's public banks are much further along in their necessary adjustment process, and the credit cycle downturn is much more advanced relative to China's. To capitalize on this theme, we recommend going long Indian banks and shorting Chinese bank stocks. India's public bank recapitalization program will allow them to slowly augment credit origination, assisting the economic recovery. Feature Chart I-1Favor Indian Banks Versus Chinese Ones Favor Indian Banks Versus Chinese Ones Favor Indian Banks Versus Chinese Ones Our report this week highlights the results from stress tests we conducted on Indian and Chinese public banks, and also compares their respective equity valuations. Based on our findings, we are initiating a new relative equity trade: long Indian / short Chinese bank stocks (Chart I-1). The health of the banking system, the credit cycle outlook as well as the performance of bank share prices hold the key to relative performance of any bourse in the EM universe. Provided our positive bias toward Indian banks relative to their EM peers on all the above parameters, we are upgrading our allocation to India from neutral to overweight within EM equity portfolios. Indian Versus Chinese Public Banks From 2003 to 2012, India went through a large credit binge and capital misallocation cycle in its industrial and infrastructure sectors. During this period, banks' loans to companies and bank assets rose from 12% to 23% and 63% to 85% of GDP, respectively (Chart I-2A). By comparison, Chinese (ex-policy) commercial banks' claims on companies and their total assets have surged from 85% to 110% and from under 180% to 230% of GDP, respectively, since 2009 (Chart I-2B). In both countries, the banking sector remains dominated by public banks that hold more than 50% of banking system assets. Chart I-2ACredit Boom In Perspective: India Credit Boom In Perspective: India Credit Boom In Perspective: India Chart I-2BCredit Boom In Perspective: China Credit Boom In Perspective: China Credit Boom In Perspective: China Today, Indian public banks - who were the main lenders to industrial companies during the corporate credit binge in the 2003-12 period - have been experiencing mushrooming bad loans. Total public banks' NPLs and distressed asset ratios have reached 13.5% and 2.7% of total loans, respectively (Chart I-3). By contrast, for all Chinese banks, the current NPL ratio is at a mere 1.7%, while the distressed loan ratio stands at only 3.6% of total loans. Chart I-3NPL Ratios In Perspective: India & China NPL Ratios In Perspective: India & China NPL Ratios In Perspective: India & China Further, under pressure from the central bank, Indian public banks have been raising provisioning levels for bad assets very aggressively. On the flip side, Chinese regulators have been following tolerant policies toward their own commercial banks. As such, the provisions-to-loans ratio at all public banks now stands at 3% in China, compared with 5.6% in India. In addition, Chinese banks have bought a lot of corporate bonds that are not provisioned for at all. Does this higher NPL ratio in India relative to China mean that credit allocation is much worse in India? Not quite. The thesis that Indian public banks are more poorly managed than Chinese public banks is not accurate. These banks are managed by public sector executives who often allocate credit to support government growth policies. This is why it is reasonable to assume that the quality of credit allocation among Chinese and Indian public banks is probably similar. As such, we presume that Chinese banks' current NPL ratio is severely understated, and has the potential to rise to levels currently being reported by Indian public banks. The basis is that the Chinese credit boom has dramatically exceeded that of India (see Chart I-2A and I-2B on page 2). Typically, the resulting NPL ratio is proportional to the magnitude of the preceding credit frenzy. Finally, India's central government announced a major recapitalization plan in October 2017 to assist the country's public banks in cleaning up their balance sheets and to also support them in expanding credit. It is likely, therefore, that these banks are now approaching the final stages of their balance sheet repair and deleveraging process. Bottom Line: India's public banks are much further along in their necessary adjustment, and their credit cycle downturn is also much more advanced relative to Chinese banks. The latter have been postponing the inevitable balance sheet clean-up process. To capitalize on this theme, we recommend going long Indian banks and shorting Chinese bank stocks. Banking Stress Test For India And China We have conducted stress tests for India's top seven and China's top five listed public banks. We used the following assumptions for the three scenarios we considered: Non-performing risk-weighted assets (NPA) ratios to rise to 14% (pessimistic), 12% (baseline) and 10% (optimistic scenario) of risk-weighted assets for both Indian and Chinese public banks. Risk-weighted assets adjust banks' various types of assets based on their degree of riskiness. In that way, the risk-weighted asset values are comparable between the two banking systems. We assume a 30% recovery rate in all three NPA scenarios for both countries. The recovery rate on Chinese banks' NPAs in the 2001-2005 period was 20% amid a booming economy. The assumed recovery rate of 30% is therefore not low. The outcome of the stress tests is as follows: In the baseline scenario of 12% NPA, the losses post recovery and provisions would amount to 1.3 trillion rupees in India (0.9% of GDP) and RMB 3.4 trillion in China (4.2% of GDP). This would translate into a 33% equity impairment for India's seven public banks, and 48% for China's five public banks (Table I-1 and I-2, column 7). Table I-1Stress Test For Top 7 Indian Public Banks Long Indian / Short Chinese Banks Long Indian / Short Chinese Banks Table I-2Stress Test For Top 5 Chinese Public Banks Long Indian / Short Chinese Banks Long Indian / Short Chinese Banks From a valuation standpoint, the post-impairment price-to-book value (PBV) ratio would jump to 1.44 and 1.62 for Indian- and Chinese-listed public banks, respectively. Assuming a fair PBV ratio of 1.3 - which is the average PBV ratio for all EM banks since 2011 - Indian public banks are 11% overvalued and Chinese ones are about 25% overvalued. In other words, if one were to calculate the true PBV ratio of these banks after a comprehensive "clean-up" has been done, then Indian public bank stocks would be cheaper than Chinese ones. It is important to note that the above valuation exercise does not take into consideration banks' future profits. As such, we account for their recurring profits in the following manner: Table I-3 calculates the ratio of NPA losses to banks' recurring net profits before provisioning. Losses are the amount to be written-off post provisioning and recovery. In the baseline scenario of a 12% of NPA, this ratio is 2.5 for India and 3.4 for China. In other words, it will take 2.5 and 3.4 years of net profits before provisions close the "black hole" of NPA losses (post provisions and recovery) in India and China, respectively. Hence, on this measure as well, India's listed public banks appear more appealing than those in China. Table I-3Profit Coverage Of Loan Losses Long Indian / Short Chinese Banks Long Indian / Short Chinese Banks There is a caveat regarding Chinese banks' stress and their post-impairment book value. Our analysis is performed based on risk-weighted assets, and does not include off-balance-sheet assets. Therefore, any losses from off-balance-sheet assets will make losses for Chinese public banks greater than our analysis captures. Further, the Chinese financial authorities are currently tightening regulations, which will likely curtail banks' off-balance-sheet activities and by extension their profitability. These risks are not present in India, where banks have less off-balance-sheet assets. Bottom Line: Public bank stocks are currently overvalued by about 11% and 25% in absolute terms in both India and China, respectively. This favors Indian bank share prices outperforming their Chinese peers. The fact that the "clean-up" has not yet begun in China reinforces this trade. Banks' Recapitalization In India Saddled with NPLs, Indian public banks have not been willing to lend in recent years. Chart I-4 demonstrates that their loan growth has stalled. Credit to large industrial companies has in particular suffered (Chart I-4, bottom panel), as most of this type of credit is typically extended by public banks. Chart I-4India: Public Bank Loan Growth Has Slumped India: Public Bank Loan Growth Has Slumped India: Public Bank Loan Growth Has Slumped Consequently, India's capital expenditures have languished in recent years, weighing not only on cyclical growth but also depressing long-term productivity and potential growth. In October, the Indian government announced an estimated 2.11 trillion rupees public bank recapitalization program that will be implemented over the next two years. The program is for all public banks, while the above stress test was performed for only the top seven listed public banks. The latter account for around 60% of all public banks' assets, so we assume they will get around 60% of the stated recapitalization amount. The recapitalization program is designed as follows: The central government plans to inject 180 billion rupees of equity capital into all public banks via budgetary allocations. The public banks will in turn raise 580 billion rupees from the market. The remaining 1,350 billion rupees will come from government-issued Bank Recapitalization Bonds. The government will issue bonds to banks and then use the funds to buy more shares from public banks. It is important to note that in the stress test above and for the calculation of post-impairment PBV ratios, we assume the government will not subsidize existing shareholders when it injects money into public banks. This means the government will provide equity capital to public banks at post-impairment equity value - i.e., at a fair market price. It will be difficult for the Indian government to bail out its public banks without making current shareholders bear losses. If the government bails out public banks' private and foreign shareholders, the opposition parties will use the bank recapitalization program against Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government in the general elections scheduled to be held in 2019. Many investors and commentators assume that India's bank recapitalization program is automatically bullish for bank share prices. While it is positive for banks' ability to lend and drive growth in the medium and long term, the program is not necessarily bullish for share prices, particularly at their current high levels. The same is true for potential recapitalization programs in China. Overall, odds are that current shareholders of public banks will likely shoulder meaningful losses in India and possibly in China as well. How well off will capitalized public banks in India be after implementation of the recapitalization program? In the case of the seven Indian public banks we performed the stress test on, Table I-4 estimates that post-impairment and recovery, the total equity capital-to-risk-weighted assets ratio will be 8% in our baseline scenario. This is lower than the regulatory minimum of 9%. Table I-4Capital Ratios For India's Top 7 Public Banks Long Indian / Short Chinese Banks Long Indian / Short Chinese Banks The recapitalization will bring this equity capital adequacy ratio to 11.3%, which exceeds the regulatory minimum of 9%. Hence, after the program is completed, Indian public banks will likely become well capitalized and will be able to resume their lending and expand their assets. This in turn will facilitate the economic recovery. Bottom Line: The Indian government's recapitalization program is sufficient to raise public banks' capital adequacy ratio above the regulatory minimum. This will allow public banks to resume their lending. India's Cyclical Growth Outlook India's cyclical outlook will be one of muted recovery. Yet it is superior to other EMs, where we expect meaningful deceleration due to a potential slowdown in China and a rollover in commodities prices. Public banks' recap program will be slow in India - to be conducted over the next two years - and banks' ability to boost lending will improve only gradually. Meanwhile, private banks have and will probably continue to concentrate their lending efforts on consumers rather than on industrial companies and infrastructure. In the next 12-18 months, a slow improvement in public banks' ability to originate credit will allow only moderate improvement in capital spending growth. The latter is required to resolve bottlenecks and unleash the nation's productivity potential. Several indicators of capital spending are lukewarm (Chart I-5, top panel). However, new capex project announcements and the number of investment proposals have been dropping (Chart I-5, middle panel). Surprisingly, companies' foreign external borrowing is still contracting, despite booming capital inflows into EM (Chart I-5, bottom panel). On the consumer side, the outlook remains bright. Motorcycle sales have recovered sharply and commercial vehicle sales are beginning to pick up (Chart I-6). Chart I-5India's Capital Spending Is Sluggish India's Capital Spending Is Sluggish India's Capital Spending Is Sluggish Chart I-6Indian Consumer Health Is Strong Indian Consumer Health Is Strong Indian Consumer Health Is Strong Consumer/personal loans are accelerating from an already strong growth rate, largely thanks to the aggressiveness of private sector banks (Chart I-6, bottom panel). In turn, the employment outlook is finally beginning to show signs of improvement (Chart I-7). The manufacturing PMI has also risen substantially, and is currently in expansion territory (Chart I-8). Likewise, the service sector PMI has bounced above 50. Chart I-7India's Employment Is Turning The Corner India's Employment Is Turning The Corner India's Employment Is Turning The Corner Chart I-8India: PMIs Are Positive India: PMIs Are Positive India: PMIs Are Positive Finally, India is less exposed to China's growth and a retracement in commodities prices than many other emerging economies. This makes us upbeat on India's cyclical economic dynamics and relative equity and currency performance versus other EMs. Bottom Line: India's cyclical outlook is better than that of many other EMs. Structural Tailwinds And Impediments India holds huge promise for investors as it is a much-underinvested economy, and potential return on capital is considerably higher in those countries than in relatively overinvested ones. In addition, its population and labor force growth are among the highest in mainstream developing countries. On the other hand, for such potential to be realized, the country needs to be able to boost its productivity. On this count, the outlook is less positive. India's share of global goods and services exports has declined substantially since 2011 (Chart I-9). This should not be surprising, given weak investment spending has led to stagnation in trade competitiveness. Chart I-10 reveals that based on the UNCTAD1 dataset, India has been losing market share in both low- and high-skilled labor sectors export markets worldwide. Chart I-9India's Share In Global Trade India's Share In Global Trade India's Share In Global Trade Chart I-10India Has Been Losing Export Market Share India Has Been Losing Export Market Share India Has Been Losing Export Market Share While certain reforms such as the introduction of a sales tax will have a positive impact on the economy, other much-needed changes, such as land and labor market reforms, have so far remained unattainable. Moreover, the agriculture sector still faces material challenges. Without these vital reforms, it will be difficult to boost efficiency and productivity and build global competitiveness. Finally, in terms of education enrollment, India lags other EMs, especially China, in tertiary education (Chart I-11). This makes it even more difficult to boost productivity and growth potential. Bottom Line: India has great secular potential, but the structural advance has stalled since 2011. The jury is still out on whether it can implement additional reforms to realize this potential. Investment Conclusions India's banking sector outlook is brighter, and the deleveraging cycle is much more advanced, compared with many other EMs in general and China in particular. Therefore, we recommend a new relative equity trade: long Indian banks / short Chinese banks. Investors could buy Indian public banks or all banks with the understanding that private banks are typically in better shape than their state-owned peers, but are also much more expensive. We will be tracking this trade's performance using the Bankex index for India and the MSCI bank index for China. The Bankex index has a larger share of market cap of public banks than the MSCI India bank index. Within China, we are maintaining our short small and medium / long large banks position initiated on October 26th 2016. We are also recommending EM equity investors upgrade the Indian bourse from neutral to overweight. We shifted Indian stocks from overweight to neutral on August 23rd 2017, but the risk-reward has improved since then (Chart I-12). Chart I-11India's Education Improvement Is Lagging India's Education Improvement Has Stalled India's Education Improvement Has Stalled Chart I-12Upgrade Indian Bourse Within EM Universe Upgrade Indian Bourse Within EM Universe Upgrade Indian Bourse Within EM Universe Our primary concerns with EM stocks are a China slowdown, a rollover in commodities prices and a rebound in the U.S. dollar. Associated strains in countries with large foreign debt levels or wide current account deficits as well as lack of credit deleveraging and bank recapitalization will define EM financial markets' performance in the next 12-18 months. On all of these counts, India scores better than many EMs, justifying this equity upgrade. The absolute outlook for Indian stocks, however, is not inspiring. This equity market is rather expensive and overbought in absolute terms. If EM risk assets experience a setback in 2018, as we expect, Indian equities will also relapse in absolute terms. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com   1 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.   Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Controversial gaffes aside, President Trump has started 2018 by moving to the middle; This comes at a time when animal spirits are reawakening thanks to tax cuts; And the path of least resistance for fiscal policy points towards more profligacy; Meanwhile, Chinese growth is imperiled by structural reform efforts; With money growth and import data showing signs of stress; The combination of upside growth risks in the U.S. and downside growth risks in the rest of the world should revive the U.S. dollar and threaten EM performance in 2018. Feature In just the first two weeks of 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump has: Hosted a meeting on immigration policy with Republican and Democratic leaders during which he said that the upcoming legislation should be a "bill of love," while encouraging congressional leaders to think big and pursue comprehensive immigration reform; Claimed that he has a "very good relationship" with Kim Jong-Un, while refusing to deny that he has already spoken privately with the North Korean leader; Supported bringing back "earmarks" in order to grease the wheels of bipartisanship in Congress - i.e., new spending that allocates funds to specific projects; Extended sanction relief to Iran, albeit with the caveat that it would be the last time he does so without demanding modifications to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the Iran nuclear deal); Broken with his former chief political strategist Steve Bannon - dubbing him "Sloppy Steve" in the process - while disparaging Bannon's penchant for scorched-earth tactics.1 On the whole, Trump's actions in January suggest a move towards the political center. Meanwhile, the media and political opponents continue to dwell on Trump's alleged comments where he disparaged immigrants from certain countries, obscuring the subtle shift in political strategy. What would be the reason for a Trump shift to the middle? As we wrote last week, the Pocketbook Voter Theory in political science suggests that Trump's Republican Party should be benefiting from a surge in popular support amid strong economic data and record-setting market performance.2 However, the 2018 generic congressional ballot still points to a very challenging midterm election for the Republican Party (Chart 1). Trump has two choices. First, he can ignore the poor GOP polling, as well as his own (Chart 2) in the face of stellar economic performance, and plow into an electoral disaster. This would make him the earliest "lame duck" president in recent U.S. history. As we wrote in December, this choice is a serious market risk for investors.3 Lame duck presidents have often sought relevancy abroad, given the lack of constitutional constraints to executive action in the foreign policy realm. In the case of Trump, we could think of three avenues by which he might increase geopolitical risk premiums: Protectionist policies towards China, the abrogation of NAFTA, or military tensions with Iran. Chart 1History Favors The Opposition History Favors The Opposition History Favors The Opposition Chart 2Trump Is Extraordinarily Unpopular Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China The second option for President Trump is to move to the middle ahead of the midterms. This would be unexpected in every way other than that Trump is the master of the unexpected. We happen to agree with his supporters that he is a political genius. Unless, that is, he continues to waste an extraordinary bull market, strong economy, and soaring consumer/business confidence by refusing to woo the median voter. What would a shift towards the center mean for the equity market? First, the already low probability that domestic political intrigue will upend the ongoing rally would get even lower in a world where Trump moves to the center. Second, the risk of market-moving geopolitical risks prompted by White House policy would decline as Trump would presumably seek and follow the advice of his establishment advisers. In other words, it would be pure nectar for the already buoyant markets. This is not to say that there would not still be reason for a pullback in U.S. equities. The bull-bear ratio is dangerously high (Chart 3), and consumer confidence is ominously stretched (Chart 4). Chart 3Investor Bullishness Is At Record High... Investor Bullishness Is At Record High... Investor Bullishness Is At Record High... Chart 4...And So Is Consumer Confidence ...And So Is Consumer Confidence ...And So Is Consumer Confidence U.S.: Business Owners Are Republican While some of our clients in the financial community may fret about Trump's unorthodoxy, our clients in the corporate world clearly do not. This is not merely an offhand observation, it is an empirical fact (Chart 5). America's business leaders have given President Trump the benefit of the doubt since he was elected. Bill Dunkelberg, the Chief Economist of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which publishes the Small Business Optimism survey, went on to comment this month: "we've been doing this research for nearly half a century ... and I've never seen anything like 2017 ... The 2016 election was like a dam breaking."4 It is dangerous, therefore, to be overly mathematical about U.S. growth prospects in 2017. While we agree with our colleague Peter Berezin that, on face value, the strict growth impact of the tax cuts may merely add 0.3% of GDP growth in 2018, the qualitative impact of unleashing animal spirits is incalculable.5 The risk to growth in the U.S. is therefore very much tilted to the upside. First, as we discussed in a Special Report published with our U.S. Equity Strategy colleague Chris Bowes, a crucial, yet under-reported change in the corporate tax bill allows the immediate expensing of capital investment.6 Most market observers have overlooked this part of the legislation as it is simply a shift in the "time value of money." The IRS already allows significantly accelerated depreciation of capex; this reform merely brings it forward. Our analysis, however, suggests that the impact of bringing it forward could, at the margin, change spending behavior for firms and drive the next upleg in capex. This comes at a time when the prospects for business investment are already positive (Chart 6).7 Chart 5Business Owners Are Depressed When##br## Democrats Control The White House Business Owners Are Depressed When Democrats Control The White House Business Owners Are Depressed When Democrats Control The White House Chart 6Animal Spirits Will ##br##Spur CAPEX Animal Spirits Will Spur CAPEX Animal Spirits Will Spur CAPEX Second, investors are underestimating the probability that the current budget impasse - which could lead to a government shutdown in late January - gets resolved through more, not less, federal spending. Trump surprised legislators during a meeting on immigration when he offered his support for "earmarks" - i.e., legislative tags that direct funding to special interests in representatives' home districts. Earmarks were done away with in 2011 by the GOP following the Tea Party-inspired 2010 midterm victory, but they have crept back into the discussion through different guises (Chart 7). Chart 7Pork-Barrel Prohibition Is Ending Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China The timing of Trump's statement on earmarks is interesting as the House Rules Committee is holding public hearings on the originally GOP-instituted earmark ban. In fact, the 115th Congress (the current one) almost reinstated earmarks at the beginning of 2017, only to be held back by House Speaker Paul Ryan and the newly elected White House. In January 2017, Ryan and the White House agreed that it would be unseemly to approve "pork barreling" so quickly after the election of a man who promised to "drain the swamp." Apparently, a year later, the appropriate amount of time has passed to make the move okay! What about the fears that the budget deficit is unsustainable? Investors may be fretting about a problem that does not exist (at least not yet). Chart 8 shows that budget deficits have decreased in almost every case ahead of a recession by 1.16% on average in the eight quarters before a downturn. This is because revenues are very important in determining deficit dynamics. Only just before the recession hits, as growth slows, does the deficit start to flatline or expand. If the risk to the U.S. economy is to the upside, as we believe it is, then deficits will come down regardless of tax or spending policy. Chart 8The Deficit Is Not A Problem... Yet The Deficit Is Not A Problem... Yet The Deficit Is Not A Problem... Yet Fiscal policy rhetoric may alone be far more important to the equity, bond, and currency markets than the market is currently pricing. Talk of draconian spending cuts - remember the May 2017 White House budget? Anyone? - could very quickly be replaced with an appropriation bill in late January that combines higher defense spending with higher discretionary spending. Given the current low levels of discretionary spending (Chart 9), the move towards greater spending could be sizeable and surprising. And if earmarks make a comeback, look out! Chart 9Government Spending Is Bottoming Government Spending Is Bottoming Government Spending Is Bottoming Chart 10Global Economy Is Firing On All Cylinders Global Economy Is Firing On All Cylinders Global Economy Is Firing On All Cylinders This fiscal fuel is coming when the fire of the U.S. economy is already well lit. Yes, global growth is strong (Chart 10), but U.S. growth is likely to beat it in 2018 (Chart 11). The global and U.S. economy may diverge just as the BCA's two-factor 10-year Treasury yield model is showing that U.S. long-dated bonds are expensive (Chart 12), while dollar bearishness is overcrowded (Chart 13). Chart 11U.S. May Outperform Global Growth U.S. May Outperform Global Growth U.S. May Outperform Global Growth Chart 12More Room For Yields To Rise More Room For Yields To Rise More Room For Yields To Rise Chart 13The Dollar Will Be Great Again The Dollar Will Be Great Again The Dollar Will Be Great Again Bottom Line: Tax cuts will unleash animal spirits in the U.S. in 2018. Meanwhile, the political path of least resistance on fiscal policy is towards profligacy. Fade any talk of austerity or entitlement reform, earmarks are back! A combination of easy fiscal policy and tax cuts should be good for equity markets, bad for Treasuries, and good for the greenback in 2018. Technical indicators flag some near-term risks to the dollar, but over the course of the year, our assessment is that it will hold at current levels or rally. China: Reform Reboot Is Growth-Constraining Unlike the U.S. economy, where risks lie to the upside, China is our top candidate for growth disappointments in 2018. Premier Li Keqiang has announced that China's GDP grew by 6.9% in 2017, slightly above expectations at the beginning of the year. However, growth momentum is already slowing due to cyclical factors, the waning of fiscal and credit stimulus, and the government's financial tightening measures that were implemented over the past year (Chart 14). Chinese imports are what really matter from a global macro perspective, and the latest import data suggest that the domestic economy is slowing more abruptly than expected. Import growth fell sharply to 5% year-on-year in December and 0.46% month-on-month. Import volume growth fell from 27.1% in early 2017 to 9.3% in December (Chart 15). Chart 14Chinese Economy: Weakness Ahead Chinese Economy: Weakness Ahead Chinese Economy: Weakness Ahead Chart 15What Happens In China, Does Not Stay In China What Happens In China, Does Not Stay In China What Happens In China, Does Not Stay In China Policy changes are highly likely to add to this slowdown. There can no longer be much doubt about the reformist turn in government policy that we highlighted last year.8 All of the policy announcements that came out of the nineteenth National Party Congress in October so far have had a reformist bent. The market agrees, as the sectors of the equity market most likely to benefit from reforms - health care, IT, energy and consumer staples - have outperformed the broad market significantly since President Xi's five-year policy speech on October 18, 2017 (Chart 16). Two separate news items that caused market jitters over the past week reflect the reformist turn. First came unconfirmed rumors that China would make its exchange rate more flexible by abandoning a "counter-cyclical factor" in its daily fixing rate; second came a "fake news" report that China planned to diversify its foreign exchange reserves away from U.S. Treasuries (Chart 17). The rumors were not significant in themselves, at least not without more information, but they were significant in suggesting that debates on major macro policies are intensifying.9 The question is how much resolve will China's central government have in executing its renewed reform agenda? President Xi obviously does not want to self-impose a recession, yet meaningful reform will constrain credit, investment, and growth. For instance, the current financial regulatory crackdown has caused a precipitous drop in the growth of wealth management products (WMPs), which are investment products that make up about 60% of the burgeoning non-bank credit flows; non-bank credit, for its part, makes up 28% of total credit (total social financing). And regulators have gone on to tackle entrusted loans, corporate bonds, and other innovative financial products as well (Chart 18). The impact could be material over the course of this year. Chart 16Markets Believe In China Reforms Markets Believe In China Reforms Markets Believe In China Reforms Chart 17Chinese Treasury Reserves Can Be Weaponized Chinese Treasury Reserves Can Be Weaponized Chinese Treasury Reserves Can Be Weaponized Chart 18China's Dodd-Frank Moment China's Dodd-Frank Moment China's Dodd-Frank Moment We strongly urge clients to fade the narrative that China is already "easing up" on reforms. In the three months since China's party congress we have seen a handful of false media narratives about how the government is backtracking on its policy agenda. For instance, both The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times declared that the outcome of the major annual economic policymaking meeting - the Central Economic Work Conference - included a turn away from deleveraging. This was not only a misreading of the high-level policy priorities but also a mistranslation of the Economic Work Conference documents, which argued that deleveraging remains a key policy focus.10 It would be humiliating for President Xi - who, not incidentally, has achieved Mao-like authority within the Communist Party - to backtrack on his second-term economic agenda before he has even officially been elected to his second term. Xi will be re-elected in March and he is looking at 2020-21 deadlines for progress on key reforms according to the thirteenth Five Year Plan (2015-20) and his own three-year plan to fight the "Three Battles" of systemic financial risk, poverty, and pollution. The only way to meet these deadlines while ensuring that the country is strong and stable for the 100th anniversary of the Communist Party in 2021 is to frontload the reform push in 2018-19.11 In Table 1 we update our "Reform Reboot Checklist" to reflect the reality that the Central Economic Work Conference produced a strikingly reform-oriented outcome. This is significant because it was billed as the first major statement of economic policy under "Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for the New Era." Table 1How Do We Know China Is Reforming? Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China The money growth (M2) target for 2018, for instance, is rumored to be the lowest in China's history after that meeting (supposedly it will be 9%, down from the low- to mid-teens seen in previous years). Now all we need to confirm that serious reforms are afoot is slower bank loan growth (which will likely be tipped in January numbers due in early February), or substantially tighter interbank rates, plus the announcement of significant reform initiatives at the annual "Two Sessions" in early March. It is very common in China for central government decrees to be too draconian initially and then to be modified after an outcry from industry. This year, however, we would advise clients to avoid confusing the inevitable back-and-forth between the central and local governments for a lack of resolve from the central government.12 China's bark will have bite this time around because the political and macroeconomic constraints to the core leadership are lower than they have been at any point in the past ten years. Table 2 shows the issues that we are watching to gauge the reform process and its impact on growth. In light of the above initiatives, we give a 30% subjective probability that China's policymakers will overtighten this year, which could lead to a global risk-off move in financial assets. Table 2China Is Rebooting Economic Reforms Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China Even in our baseline case - China slows abruptly but remains stable - we believe financial markets have yet to understand the shift in Chinese policymaker thinking, which means that China is the prime candidate for negative surprises in a year in which markets are priced for perfection. Chart 19China's Trade Surplus Is A Geopolitical Risk China's Trade Surplus Is A Geopolitical Risk China's Trade Surplus Is A Geopolitical Risk Finally, China is still a major geopolitical risk this year. It scored the largest trade surplus ever with the U.S. in 2017 (Chart 19) and several key U.S. trade rulings are looming that could trigger a tit-for-tat conflict. This was, of course, the real reason behind the rumors about halting U.S. Treasury purchases. We will discuss the trade and geopolitical tensions in a forthcoming report. Bottom Line: China's reform reboot is gaining steam. It will threaten to constrain growth via the anti-corruption campaign, financial and regulatory tightening, corporate and industrial restructuring, and local government scrutiny. In combination with a stronger U.S. economy, China's downward-sloping business cycle and reform-capable political cycle spell disappointments for global markets this year. Investment Implications A faster growing U.S. economy and a slower growing China is beneficial for DM versus EM, the USD versus the RMB and other EM and commodity-linked currencies, U.S. stocks relative to DM stocks (because China's slower growth will weigh on Japanese and European earnings), and Chinese stocks relative to EM. It is bearish for China/EM corporate bonds. It will have varying impacts on commodity prices, depending on the role of Chinese supply-side reforms, but in the long term - as overcapacity cuts are priced in - it should be marginally bearish base metals as a result of China's desired switch of the growth model to a less investment-intensive model.13 Could stronger U.S. growth compensate for slower Chinese growth? We doubt it very much. China is alone expected to make up a third of all global economic growth in 2018, with China-leveraged EM making up the other 45%, according to the latest IMF World Economic Outlook (Chart 20). It is unfathomable to see how the U.S., which is expected to contribute just 10% of all growth, can compensate for slower growth in developing nations. Even if U.S. growth massively surprised to the upside, the U.S. economy is far too domestically driven to make a genuine difference through higher imports. Chart 20Chinese Growth Outweighs U.S. Globally Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China As for the U.S. economy and markets, a global slowdown may be precisely what the doctor ordered. With stretched valuations, a foreign-induced correction may be healthy from a valuation perspective while having no impact on domestic economic fundamentals. Meanwhile, a dollar rally combined with some market volatility later in the year may be enough to give the Fed just enough pause to slow down the pace of hikes. Technical indicators are flagging some near-term risks to the dollar, but over the course of the year our assessment is that it will hold at current levels or rally. While this is not our base case, it would be the type of event that could prolong the current economic cycle. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jim Mylonas, Vice President Client Advisory & BCA Academy jim@bcaresearch.com 1 In his official statement on the break with Mr. Bannon, President Trump concluded with an important paragraph: "We have many great Republican members of Congress and candidates who are very supportive of the Make America Great Again agenda. Like me, they love the United States of America and are helping to finally take our country back and build it up, rather than simply seeking to burn it all down." The statement was important as it aligned President Trump firmly with Congressional Republicans in their opposition to the Bannon/Breitbart Clique. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The American Pocketbook Voter," dated January 10, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see NFIB, "December 2017 Report: Small Business Optimism Index," dated December 12, 2017, available at www.nfib.com. 5 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Four Key Questions On The 2018 Global Growth Outlook," dated January 5, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Tax Cuts Are Here - Equity Sector Implications," dated December 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 The biggest pushback against our view comes from the oft-repeated anecdote of a meeting between Gary Cohn, the Director of the National Economic Council, and American business leaders. Apparently, when Cohn asked the attendees how many would invest if their corporate taxes were cut, only one executive raised their hand. We have now heard this anecdote repeated to us so many times by clients that it has become clear that it is essentially the only evidence that U.S. corporations have no intention of increasing capex. Needless to say, we do not base our analysis on a single anecdote! 8 For this theme, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "China Down, India Up?" dated March 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 The change to the RMB fixing method is not confirmed, while the rumor of a change in the forex reserve portfolio management came from an unreliable media report that was denied by China's State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE). China's purchases of U.S. Treasuries peaked in 2011; China would harm itself if it sold its Treasuries rapidly. However, it may want to highlight this threat in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's threats of broad tariffs on Chinese imports. 10 The official communique from the 2017 Central Economic Work Conference did not specifically use the term "deleveraging," as in the 2015 and 2016 statements. This omission triggered U.S. news reports claiming that Beijing was backing off its deleveraging goal. However, the 2017 communique clearly emphasized preventing financial risk, including the first of the administration's "three battles" for the next three years. It also indirectly referred to "deleveraging" by citing the "Three De's, One Lower, and One Make Up," which is shorthand for the policy phrase "De-capacity, de-stocking, deleveraging, lowering costs and making up for weaknesses," which has been a fixture in rhetoric on China's supply-side reforms. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 For instance, the central government is facing pushback on new asset management regulations that are set to be fully in force by June 2019. While there may be some compromise, we do not expect the regulations themselves to be watered down too much. 13 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "China's Environmental Reforms Drive Steel & Iron Ore," dated January 11, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com; and BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "China's 'De-Capacity' Reforms: Where Steel & Coal Prices Are Headed," dated November 22, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights An increase in the "synthetic" supply of bitcoins via financial derivatives, along with the launch of bitcoin-like alternatives by large established tech companies, will cause the cryptocurrency market to collapse under its own weight. Other areas that could see supply-induced pressures over the coming years include oil, high-yield debt, global real estate, and low-volatility trades. In contrast, the U.S. stock market has seen an erosion in the supply of shares due to buybacks and voluntary delistings. Investors should consider going long U.S. equities relative to high-yield credit, while positioning for higher volatility. Such an outcome would be similar to what happened in the late 1990s, a period when the VIX and credit spreads were trending higher, while stocks continued to hit new highs. A breakdown in NAFTA talks remains the key risk for the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso. Feature Bubbles Burst By Too Much Supply The "cure" for higher prices is higher prices. The dotcom and housing bubbles did not die fully of their own accord. Their demise was expedited by a wave of new supply hitting the market. In the case of the dotcom bubble, a flood of shares from initial and secondary public offerings inundated investors in 2000 (Chart 1). This put significant downward pressure on the prices of internet stocks. The housing boom was similarly subverted by a slew of new construction - residential investment rose to a 55-year high of 6.6% of GDP in 2006 (Chart 2). Chart 1Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 1 Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 1 Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 1 Chart 2Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 2 Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 2 Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 2 Is bitcoin about to experience a similar fate? On the surface, the answer may seem to be "no." As more bitcoins are "mined," the computational cost of additional production rises exponentially. In theory, this should limit the number of bitcoins that can ever circulate to 21 million, about 80% of which have already been created (Chart 3). Yet if one looks beneath the surface, bitcoin may also be vulnerable to a variety of "supply-side" factors. Chart 3Bitcoin: Most Of It Has Been Mined Bitcoin: Most Of It Has Been Mined Bitcoin: Most Of It Has Been Mined First, the expansion of financial derivatives tied to the value of bitcoin threatens to create a "synthetic" supply of the cryptocurrency. When someone writes a call option on a stock, the seller of the option is effectively taking a bearish bet while the buyer is taking a bullish bet. The very act of writing the option creates an additional long position, which is exactly offset by an additional short position. Moreover, to the extent that a decision to sell a particular call option will depress the price of similar call options, it will also depress the underlying price of the stock. This is simply because one can have long exposure to a stock either by owning it outright or owning a call option on it. Anything that hurts the price of the latter will also hurt the price of the former. As bitcoin futures begin to trade, investors who are bearish on bitcoin will be able to create short positions that cause the effective number of bitcoins in circulation to rise. This will happen even if the official number of bitcoins outstanding remains the same. Imitation Is The Sincerest Form Of Flattery An increase in synthetic forms of bitcoin supply is one worry for bitcoin investors. Another is the prospect of increased competition from bitcoin-like alternatives. There are now hundreds of cryptocurrencies, most of which use a slight variant of the same blockchain technology that underpins bitcoin. Chart 4Governments Will Want Their Cut Governments Will Want Their Cut Governments Will Want Their Cut So far, the proliferation of new currencies has been largely driven by technologically savvy entrepreneurs working out of their bedrooms or garages. But now companies are getting in on the act. The stock price of Kodak, which apparently is still in business, tripled earlier this week when it announced the launch of its own cryptocurrency. That's just a small taste of what's to come. What exactly is stopping giants such as Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, and Google from issuing their own cryptocurrencies? After all, they already have secure, global networks. Amazon could start giving out a few coins with every sale, and allow shoppers to purchase goods from the online retailer using its new currency. It's simple.1 The only plausible restriction is a legal one: The threat that governments will quash upstart cryptocurrencies for fear that will drive down demand for their own fiat monies. As we noted several weeks ago, the U.S. government derives $100 billion per year in seigniorage revenue from its ability to print currency and use that money to buy goods and services (Chart 4).2 As large companies get into the cryptocurrency arena, governments are likely to respond harshly - sooner rather than later. This week's news that the South Korean government will consider banning the trading of cryptocurrencies on exchanges is a sign of what's to come. Who Else? What other areas are vulnerable to an eventual tsunami of new supply? Four come to mind: Oil: BCA's bullish oil call has paid off in spades. Brent has climbed from $44 last June to $69 currently. Further gains may not be as easily attainable, however. Our energy strategists estimate that the breakeven cost of oil for U.S. shale producers is in the low-$50 range.3 We are now well above this number, which means that shale supply will accelerate. This does not mean that prices cannot go up further in the near term, but it does limit the long-term potential for crude. Real estate: Ultra-low interest rates across much of the world have fueled sharp rallies in home prices. Inflation-adjusted home prices in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and parts of Europe are well above their pre-Great Recession levels (Chart 5). U.S. real residential home prices are still below their 2006 peak, but commercial real estate (CRE) prices have galloped to new highs (Chart 6). Rent growth within the U.S. CRE sector is starting to slow, suggesting that supply is slowly catching up with demand (Chart 7). Chart 5Where Low Rates Have ##br##Fueled House Prices Where Low Rates Have Fueled House Prices Where Low Rates Have Fueled House Prices Chart 6Commercial Real Estate Prices Have ##br##Surpassed Pre-Recession Levels Commercial Real Estate Prices Have Surpassed Pre-Recession Levels Commercial Real Estate Prices Have Surpassed Pre-Recession Levels Chart 7Rent Growth Is Cooling Rent Growth Is Cooling Rent Growth Is Cooling Corporate debt: Low rates have also encouraged companies to feast on credit. The ratio of corporate debt-to-GDP in the U.S. and many other countries is close to record-high levels (Chart 8A and Chart 8B). Credit spreads remain extremely tight, but that may change as more corporate bonds reach the market. Chart 8ACorporate Debt-To-GDP ##br##Is Close To Record Highs Corporate Debt-To-GDP Is Close To Record Highs Corporate Debt-To-GDP Is Close To Record Highs Chart 8BCorporate Debt-To-GDP ##br##Is Close To Record Highs Corporate Debt-To-GDP Is Close To Record Highs Corporate Debt-To-GDP Is Close To Record Highs Low-volatility trades: A recent Bloomberg headline screamed "Short-Volatility Funds Are Being Flooded With Cash."4 The number of volatility contracts traded on the Cboe has increased more than tenfold since 2012. Net short speculative positions now stand at record-high levels (Chart 9). Traders have been able to reap huge gains over the past few years by betting that volatility will decline. The problem is that if volatility starts to rise, those same traders could start to unload their positions, leading to even higher volatility. In contrast to the aforementioned areas, the stock market has seen an erosion in the supply of shares due to buybacks and voluntary delistings. The S&P divisor is down by over 8% since 2005. The number of U.S. publicly-listed companies has nearly halved since the late 1990s (Chart 10). This trend is unlikely to reverse any time soon, given the elevated level of profit margins and the temptation that many companies will have to use corporate tax cuts to step up the pace of share repurchases. Chart 9Low Volatility Is In High Demand Low Volatility Is In High Demand Low Volatility Is In High Demand Chart 10Erosion Of Supply In The Stock Market Erosion Of Supply In The Stock Market Erosion Of Supply In The Stock Market Bet On Higher Equity Prices, But Also Higher Volatility And Higher Credit Spreads The discussion above suggests that the relationship between equity prices and both volatility and credit spreads may shift over the coming months. This would not be the first time. Chart 11 shows that the VIX and credit spreads began to trend higher in the late 1990s, even as the S&P 500 continued to hit new record highs. We may be entering a similar phase now. Continued above-trend growth in the U.S. and rising inflation will push up Treasury yields. We declared "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" on July 5, 2016 - the exact same day that the 10-year Treasury yield hit a record closing low of 1.37%.5 Higher interest rates will punish financially-strapped borrowers, leading to wider credit spreads. Equity volatility is also likely to rise as corporate health deteriorates and the timing of the next downturn draws closer. Our baseline expectation is that the U.S. and the rest of the world will fall into a recession in late 2019. Financial markets will sniff out a recession before it happens. However, if history is any guide, this will only happen about six months before the start of the recession (Table 1). This suggests that global equities can continue to rally for the next 12 months. With this in mind, we are opening a new trade going long the S&P 500 versus high-yield credit. Chart 11Volatility Can Increase And Spreads ##br##Can Widen As Stock Prices Rise Volatility Can Increase And Spreads Can Widen As Stock Prices Rise Volatility Can Increase And Spreads Can Widen As Stock Prices Rise Table 1Too Soon To Get Out Will Bitcoin Be DeFANGed? Will Bitcoin Be DeFANGed? Four Currency Quick Hits Four items buffeted currency and fixed-income markets this week. The first was a news story suggesting that China will slow or stop its purchases of U.S. Treasury debt. China's State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE) decried the report as "fake news." Lost in the commotion was the fact that China's holdings of Treasurys have been largely flat since 2011 (Chart 12). China still has a highly managed currency. Now that capital is no longer pouring out of the country, the PBoC will start rebuilding its foreign reserves. Given that the U.S. Treasury market remains the world's largest and most liquid, it is hard to see how China can avoid having to park much of its excess foreign capital in the United States. The second item this week was the Bank of Japan's announcement that it will reduce its target for how many government bonds it buys. This just formalizes something that has already been happening for over a year. The BoJ's purchases of JGBs have plunged over the past twelve months, mainly because its ¥80 trillion target is more than double the ¥30-35 trillion annual net issuance of JGBs (Chart 13). Chart 12China's Holdings Of Treasurys: ##br##Largely Flat Since 2011 China's Holdings Of Treasurys: Largely Flat Since 2011 China's Holdings Of Treasurys: Largely Flat Since 2011 Chart 13BoJ Has Been Reducing ##br##Its Bond Purchases BoJ Has Been Reducing Its Bond Purchases BoJ Has Been Reducing Its Bond Purchases Ultimately, none of this should matter that much. The Bank of Japan can target prices (the yield on JGBs) or it can target quantities (the number of bonds it owns), but it cannot target both. The fact that the BoJ is already doing the former makes the latter irrelevant. And with long-term inflation expectations still nowhere near the BoJ's target, the former is unlikely to change. What does this mean for the yen? The Japanese currency is cheap and its current account surplus has swollen to 4% of GDP (Chart 14). Speculators are also very short the currency (Chart 15). This increases the likelihood of a near-term rally, as my colleague Mathieu Savary flagged this week.6 Nevertheless, if global bond yields continue to rise while Japanese yields stay put, it is hard to see the yen moving up and staying up a lot. On balance, we expect USD/JPY to strengthen somewhat this year. Chart 14Yen Is Already Cheap... Yen Is Already Cheap... Yen Is Already Cheap... Chart 15...And Unloved ...And Unloved ...And Unloved The third item was the revelation in the ECB's December meeting minutes that the central bank will be revisiting its communication stance in early 2018. The speculation is that the ECB will renormalize monetary policy more quickly than what the market is currently discounting. If that were to happen, EUR/USD would strengthen further. All this is possible, of course, but it would likely require that euro area growth surprise on the upside. That is far from a done deal. The euro area economic surprise index has begun to edge lower, and in relative terms, has plunged against the U.S. (Chart 16). Unlike in the U.S., the euro area credit impulse is now negative (Chart 17). Euro area financial conditions have also tightened significantly relative to the U.S. (Chart 18). Chart 16Euro Area Economic ##br##Surprises Edging Lower Euro Area Economic Surprises Edging Lower Euro Area Economic Surprises Edging Lower Chart 17Negative Credit Impulse In The Euro ##br##Area Will Weigh On Growth Negative Credit Impulse In The Euro Area Will Weigh On Growth Negative Credit Impulse In The Euro Area Will Weigh On Growth Chart 18Diverging Financial Conditions ##br##Favor U.S. Over The Euro Area Diverging Financial Conditions Favor U.S. Over The Euro Area Diverging Financial Conditions Favor U.S. Over The Euro Area Meanwhile, EUR/USD has appreciated more since 2016 than what one would expect based on changes in interest rate differentials (Chart 19). Speculative positioning towards the euro has also gone from being heavily short at the start of 2017 to heavily long today (Chart 20). Reasonably cheap valuations and a healthy current account surplus continue to work in the euro's favor, but our best bet is that EUR/USD will give up some of its gains over the coming months. Chart 19The Euro Has Strengthened More Than ##br##Justified By Interest Rate Differentials The Euro Has Strengthened More Than Justified By Interest Rate Differentials The Euro Has Strengthened More Than Justified By Interest Rate Differentials Chart 20Euro Positioning: From Deeply ##br##Short To Record Long Euro Positioning: From Deeply Short To Record Long Euro Positioning: From Deeply Short To Record Long Lastly, the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso came under pressure this week on news reports that the U.S. will be pulling out of NAFTA negotiations. Of the four items discussed in this section, this is the one that worries us most. The global supply chain has become highly integrated. Anything that sabotages it would be greatly disruptive. At some level, Trump realizes this, but he also knows that his base wants him to get tough on trade, and unless he does so, his chances of reelection will be even slimmer than they are now. Ultimately, we expect a new NAFTA deal to be reached, but the path from here to there will be a bumpy one. Housekeeping Notes Our long global industrials/short utilities trade is up 12.4% since we initiated it on September 29. We are raising the stop to 10% to protect gains. We are also letting our long 2-year USD/Saudi Riyal forward contract trade expire for a loss of 2.9%. Given the recent improvement in Saudi Arabia's finances, we are not reinstating the trade. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 My thanks to Igor Vasserman, President of SHIG Partners LLC, for his valuable insights on this topic. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Bitcoin's Macro Impact," dated September 15, 2017; and Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Don't Fear A Flatter Yield Curve," dated December 22, 2017. 3 Please see Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Breakeven Analysis: Shale Companies Need ~$50 Oil To Be Self-Sufficient," dated March 15, 2017. 4 Dani Burger, "Short-Volatility Funds Are Being Flooded With Cash," Bloomberg, November 6, 2017. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Alert, "End Of The 35-year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016. 6 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy, "Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC!" dated January 12, 2018. Tactical Global Asset Allocation Recommendations Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Environmental reforms in China continue to reduce steelmaking capacity. The shuttering of illegal induction facilities in China also is tightening markets. Although official Chinese steel output is higher, this likely reflects the fact that output from illegal induction mills went unreported - and thus uncounted - while production from legal mills is increasing to fill the gap left by closures. Steelmakers' profits are surging, which means demand for iron ore in China will remain stout at least through 1H18. Copper has been well bid since June 2017, following supply disruptions and strong demand growth driven by the global economic upturn. We expect it will get an additional lift in 1H18, as wiring and plumbing in construction projects now absorbing steel in China get underway. Later, global growth will make up for any slowdown in China. Our analysis indicates the global steel market will be tightening in 1H18, as it already is doing in China. Consistent with this, we are opening a tactical long position in Mar/18 steel rebar futures on the Shanghai Futures Exchange, which are quoted in RMB/ton. We are including a 10% stop loss on this recommendation. Energy: Overweight. Our once-out-of-consensus oil view is now the consensus, so we are taking profits on Brent and WTI $55 vs. $60/bbl call spreads on May- and July-delivery oil at tonight's close. These positions were up 109.2% and 123.5% at Tuesday's close. Any sell-offs will present an opportunity to re-establish length along these forward curves. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper will remain well bid this year as the global economic recovery rolls on. A large number of contract renegotiations at mines is an additional upside risk to copper prices this year. Precious Metals: Neutral. Given our expectation of four rate hikes by the Fed, it is difficult to get too bullish gold. However, any indication the central bank is tilting dovish - particularly if we fail to see higher inflation this year - will rally the metal. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Markets will tread water until Friday's USDA WASDE. We remain underweight, except for corn. Feature Chart of the WeekIron Ore And Steel Prices Diverged In 2017 Iron Ore And Steel Prices Diverged In 2017 Iron Ore And Steel Prices Diverged In 2017 China's environmental policy actions have reduced world steel-making capacity by 100 mm MT between 1H16 and 1H18. This is most visible in Chinese steel prices, which gained more than 30% in 2017, following an almost 80% increase in 2016. The total gain in steel prices since the start of Beijing's focus on steel-market reforms is a resounding 135%. Iron ore prices posted similar gains to steel in 2016 but diverged sharply in 2017, slumping more than 40% between mid-March and mid-June - ending almost 8% lower year-on-year (yoy) (Chart of the week). Soaring steel prices pushed profit margins at Chinese mills higher, which, of course, fed through to demand for iron ore, the critical steel-making ingredient in China, toward year-end: Iron ore prices were up 20% in the last two months of 2017. How Did We Get Here? A Recap Of China's Steel Sector Reforms As part of its reforms aimed at reducing air pollution by eliminating outdated, excess industrial capacity, Beijing pledged to eliminate 100-150 mm MT of steel capacity over the 2016-2020 period. To date it has shuttered an estimated 100 mm MT of capacity. In addition to these reforms Beijing pledged to shut down smaller induction furnaces in China, which melt scrap steel, and produce steel of shoddy quality. These induction furnaces are estimated to account for 80-120 mm MT worth of annual capacity, although their actual output is far less: They produced an estimated 30-50 mm MT in 2016, according to S&P Global Platts.1 This is less than 7% of China's total crude-steel output. Production cuts from induction mills are not evident in official data - China's crude steel production figures have continued to rise amid these cuts, as we discussed in previous research (Chart 2).2 Data from the International Iron and Steel Institute shows global steel output was at a record high for the first 11 months of 2017, increasing by more than 5% yoy. Likewise, crude steel output from China - which accounts for 50% of global output - peaked in August: Output over the same period was the highest on record, increasing by 5.28% compared to the same period in 2016. This production paradox can be put down to the fact that many Chinese induction furnaces are illegal, and, as a result their output is not accounted for in official production data. As legal steelmakers ramped up their output to offset declines from the closed down induction furnaces, official crude production figures climbed. In fact, further examination of Chinese steel data makes it clear that China's steel market is in fact tighter than what can be inferred from the crude production figures (Chart 3). The following observations point to a strained market: While China's crude steel production has been paving new record highs, China Stat Info data reveals a contradictory picture about steel products. Output of steel products in the March to November period of 2017 came in 3.46% lower yoy, marking the first yoy decline for that period since 1995! While crude steel produced by induction furnaces would not be included in official crude steel figures, the metal would eventually be used to manufacture steel products - wires, rods, rails and bars, and are represented in this data. Thus the decline in steel products indicates that lower crude supply has weighed down on the output of steel products. China's steel exports have been on a downtrend. In theory, this can be due to either an increase in domestic demand or a decrease in foreign demand. Given the healthy state of the global economy, and what we know about steel production in China, we are believers in the former theory. China's exports of steel products are down 30% yoy in the first 11 months of 2017. Aside from the 3.04% yoy decline in 2016, these mark the first annual declines in exports since 2009. In face of lower domestic supply, China has likely reduced its exports in order to satisfy demand from local steel users. China's scrap steel imports fell in 2H17. Unlike blast furnaces which use iron ore as the main input in steelmaking, the shuttered illegal steelmakers use scrap steel which they melt in an induction furnace. Coincident with the elimination of these furnaces, China's imports of scrap steel fell 14.35% yoy in 2H17. This is further evidence of reduced demand for the scrap steel from these furnaces. China steel inventories are falling. In fact steel product inventories in major industrial cities are at record lows (Chart 4). This is a symptom of a tight market with demand outpacing supply, contradicting China's crude steel production figures. Chart 2Record Chinese Production Of Crude Steel##BR##Amid Falling Steel Products Output Record Chinese Production Of Crude Steel Amid Falling Steel Products Output Record Chinese Production Of Crude Steel Amid Falling Steel Products Output Chart 3China Trade Data Evidence##BR##Of Tight Market China Trade Data Evidence Of Tight Market China Trade Data Evidence Of Tight Market Chart 4Steel Inventories##BR##In China Are Falling Steel Inventories In China Are Falling Steel Inventories In China Are Falling Furthermore, according to World Steel Association (WSA), capacity utilization in the 66 countries for which they collect data increased by 3.12 percentage points yoy for the July to November 2017 period to average 72.64%, up from the 69.52% average in the same period of 2016. These observations are evidence that despite the increase in official crude steel production figures, the actual output has in fact fallen and supply is tighter. Whether steel prices will remain buoyed by tight supply hinges on whether China is successful in permanently shuttering excess capacity and shoddy steel producers, or if induction furnace operators are able to circumvent these policies and bring illegal steel back to the market. China's Reforms To Dominate Steel Market, At Least This Winter Following the conclusion of the mid-December Central Economic Work Conference, Chinese authorities announced the "three tough battles" for the next three years, which they see as crucial for future economic prosperity. These battles are summarized as (1) preventing major risks, (2) targeted poverty alleviation, and (3) pollution control. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that air pollution has led to ~1 million premature deaths while household air pollution caused an additional 1.2 million premature deaths in China annually.3 Because of this, improving China's air quality is a chief social and health target for China. Chart 5Lower Chinese Steel Production##BR##Will Impact Global Output Lower Chinese Steel Production Will Impact Global Output Lower Chinese Steel Production Will Impact Global Output This will mean that measures to reduce pollution and clear China's skies will be critically important to the steel sector. According to the Ministry of Environmental Protection, China has pledged a 15% yoy reduction in the concentration of airborne particles smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter - known as PM2.5 - in 28 smog-prone northern cities. The steel industry, which is mostly concentrated in the northern China region of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei, is one of the top sources of air polluting emissions in that region. In fact, industrial emissions - most notably from the steel and cement sectors - are reportedly responsible for 40-50% of these small airborne particles. China's winter smog "battle plan" will target these polluting industries by mandating cuts on steel, cement, and aluminum production during the smog-prone mid-November to mid-March months, as well as restricting household coal use, diesel trucks and construction projects. Steel production cuts target a range between 30-50%, which, according to Platts estimates, will take 33 mm MT of steel production - equivalent to ~3.9% of China's projected 2017 crude steel output - offline during the winter. In fact, according to China's environment minister, Li Ganjie, "these special campaigns are not a one-off, instead it is an exploration of long-term mechanisms."4 Thus, these cuts may become a recurring event in China's steel sector. China's official crude steel figures are beginning to show the impact of these cuts with November crude production falling 8.6% month-on-month (mom) and growing by just 2.2% yoy - significantly slower than the 7.6% yoy average experienced since July. As a consequence, although crude production in the rest of the world grew in line with previous months, global steel output fell almost 6% month-on-month in November, while yoy production grew 3.7% – a significant deceleration from the average 6.6% yoy rate witnessed since the beginning of 2H17 (Chart 5). Risks to this outlook come from weak compliance with these cuts. There are recent reports of evasions by aluminum and steel producers in Shandong. Nonetheless, given China's focus on these reforms, we do not foresee widespread violations. Another risk comes from the demand side. As part of its environmental agenda, Beijing announced plans put off the construction of major public projects in the city - road and water projects - until springtime. The suspension is not intended to impact "major livelihood projects" such as railways, airports, and affordable housing. Construction is the largest end user for steel - according to WSA more than half of global steel is used for buildings and infrastructure - a slowdown in the construction sector would weigh on steel demand.5 If other major construction zones adopt a similar policy, the impact of lower steel supply will be offset by weak demand, muting the overall effect on the steel market. Bottom Line: We expect to see lower steel production and exports from China in the coming months. Given Xi Jinping's resolve to improve air quality, we expect compliance to environmental reforms among steelmakers to be strong this winter. This, along with lower output from induction furnaces in China, indicates the market could be tighter than is commonly supposed at least in 1H18. The likelihood the global economic recovery and expansion persists through 2018 suggests steel markets could remain well bid in 2H18, particularly if, as we expect, growth ex-China picks up the slack resulting from any slowdown in China. However, we will need to see what the actual reforms for the industry look like following the National People's Congress in March 2018.6 Steel Profit Margins Spur Iron Ore Demand Given steel's exceptional price gains over the past two years, and iron ore's lackluster performance in 2017, profit margins at China's steel producers reached multi-year highs (Chart 6). Ordinarily, this would normally encourage steel production, which would flood the market with supply and push prices down. However, China's environmental reforms will cap output from the country's most productive steelmaking region in coming months. Consequently, unless there are mass policy violations by steel producers this winter, we do not anticipate a swift price adjustment lower. Instead, steel producers are preparing to run on all cylinders when production restrictions are lifted in the spring. As such, they are filling iron ore inventories and taking advantage of weaker iron ore prices, before the iron ore market catches up with steel. China's iron ore imports reached an all-time record in September, while the latest data shows a 19% month-on-month (mom) jump in imports, corresponding with a 2.8% yoy increase (Chart 7). Chart 6Healthy Steel##BR##Profit Margins Healthy Steel Profit Margins Healthy Steel Profit Margins Chart 7Steel Producers Stocking Up On Iron Ore##BR##In Preparation For Spring Steel Producers Stocking Up On Iron Ore In Preparation For Spring Steel Producers Stocking Up On Iron Ore In Preparation For Spring This runs counter to what we expect during a period of muted steel production. Especially in an environment of healthy iron ore inventories, as China is in currently. Although Chinese inventories came down from mid-year peaks, they resumed their upward trend in 4Q17. This coincides with the steel winter capacity cuts, and is likely due to reduced demand for the ore from steel mills. There are two theories to explain this phenomenon: 1. Chinese steelmakers are taking advantage of lower iron ore prices and locking in higher profit margins, in anticipation of higher iron ore prices once steel production picks up again in the spring. 2. Amid the winter cuts, China's steelmakers are demanding high-grade iron ore, imported from Brazil and Australia. This will help them ensure that they are able to maximize their output without violating environmental policies. Environmental Consciousness Widens Iron Ore Spreads A consequence of the steel winter capacity cuts is stronger demand for higher grade raw materials to cut down on the most polluting phases of steel production. Higher-grade iron ore, which is defined by its purity or iron content, is more efficient for blast furnaces to use, allowing them to produce more steel from each tonne of iron ore they consume, maximizing output and profit. This is especially true in a tight steel market, with healthy profit margins: Steelmakers are able to afford the higher grades and are favoring productive efficiency. The discount for lower grade iron ore fines - 58% iron content - as well as the premium for higher grade 65% iron content have widened (Chart 8). This is because mills have found a way to legally circumvent the winter environmental restrictions, and still remain compliant. Furthermore, purer ores are less polluting, which helps serve China's environmental agenda. In addition, the premiums for iron ore pellets and iron ore lumps have also widened. Unlike lumps and pellets which can be fed directly into blast furnaces, fines require a sintering process which is highly polluting. Thus, China's environmental reforms have increased demand for higher grade, less polluting ores. An additional factor that could be driving up spreads is higher metallurgical coke prices (Chart 6). Higher grade iron ore contains less silica and thus requires less met coke to purify the ores. According to anecdotal evidence from China, Carajas fines from Brazil - which have the highest iron ore content and lowest silica content- are reportedly in high demand.7 Furthermore, China's imports show a decline in iron ore from India - which is of the lower grades. In the July to October period, imports fell 11.26% yoy with October imports falling almost 25% yoy and 30% mom. This is consistent with the theory that steel makers are shunning lower grade ores. On the other hand, imports from Brazil and Australia are expected to remain strong (Chart 9). The latest Australian Resources and Energy Quarterly forecasts Australian and Brazilian iron ore exports to grow 5.4% and 4.2% respectively in 2018, while Indian exports are projected to fall 57.5% yoy. Chart 8Wide Iron Ore##BR##Price Spreads Wide Iron Ore Price Spreads Wide Iron Ore Price Spreads Chart 9Environmental Concerns Will Support##BR##Demand For High Grade Iron Ore Environmental Concerns Will Support Demand For High Grade Iron Ore Environmental Concerns Will Support Demand For High Grade Iron Ore Bottom Line: In an effort to keep production high and profit from strong steel prices in face of the winter production cuts, steel producers are turning to higher-grade iron ore, pushing up the spread between high vs. low grade ores. The extent to which steel producers are able to successfully keep production going on the back of higher-grade ores will dampen the impact of the winter production cuts on the steel sector. Given that China's environmental focus is a long term plan, we expect these spreads to remain wide, rather than reverting back to their historic average. Steel Prices And Copper Markets Chart 10Steel Consumption Helps##BR##Predict Copper Prices Steel Consumption Helps Predict Copper Prices Steel Consumption Helps Predict Copper Prices The copper market had a roller coaster fourth quarter. Prices for the red metal were on a general uptrend since May, and first peaked in early September at $3.13/lb before bottoming at $2.91/lb by the second half of that month. Shortly thereafter, copper prices peaked at a new high of $3.22/lb by mid October - their highest in more than three years. Fears of a slowdown in China following messaging from the 19th Communist Party Congress caused the metal to lose almost 10% of its value, when it bottomed for the second time in early December. In fact, this coincided with a 4.65% decline in the price on December 5. While there is no clear justification for this fall, it can be put down to a mix of factors including a ~10 th MT increase in LME inventories, worries about a China slowdown, as well as a liquidation of positions ahead of the new year. Nonetheless, copper has since regained these losses to end the year at $3.28/lb. In our modelling of copper, we find that steel consumption is significant in forecasting future copper price behavior. More specifically, China's steel consumption has a significant positive relationship with copper prices 6 months into the future (Chart 10). This can be explained by the importance of the construction sector as an end user of both materials. However, each metal goes into the construction site at different time frames. While steel products are used in the construction of the structures, and thus are needed at the beginning of the project, copper is used in the electrical wiring and plumbing, and is thus needed later (6 months or so) in the project. This is in line with our findings that steel is most significant with a six-month lag - reflecting the average time period between which the structure is built and the plumbing and wiring are needed. Steel consumption in China is a useful leading indicator of copper markets when demand side fundamentals are dominating steel and copper markets. Government stimulus and a solid construction sector boosted China's steel demand in 2017. However, according to the WSA Short Range Outlook, demand for steel will moderate this year on the back of reflation in China, partially offset by strong global growth. WSA notes that the closure of induction furnaces skewed up steel demand growth figures to 12.4% yoy, and instead cite a more reasonable estimate along the lines of 3% yoy steel demand growth from China in 2017, bringing the global steel demand growth rate to 2.8%. While steel demand outside of China grew by an estimated 2.6% in 2017, they foresee it reaching 3% in 2018. In contrast, they expect flat demand from China in 2018, bringing world steel demand growth to 1.6% in 2018 (Table 1). Table 1Steel Demand (yoy Growth Rates) China's Environmental Reforms Drive Steel & Iron Ore China's Environmental Reforms Drive Steel & Iron Ore Moderating demand from China and the stability (or lack thereof) of the supply-side will dominate the copper market this year. On the demand side, China's steel market offers insight about the future direction of the red metal. Bottom Line: Given China's appetite for steel has remained healthy to date and is projected to maintain its 2017 level this year, we do not expect a demand-induced plunge in copper prices in the 6 month horizon. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Will China's induction furnace steel whac-a-mole finally come to an end?" published by S&P Global Platts March 6, 2017. 2 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Slow-Down In China's Reflation Will Temper Steel, Iron Ore In 2018," published September 7, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see IEA World Energy Outlook 2016 Special Report titled "Energy and Air Pollution," available at iea.org. 4 Please see "Provincial China officials used fake data to evade aluminium, steel capacity curbs - China Youth Daily," published on December 26, 2017, available at reuters.com. 5 Please see "Steel Markets" at worldsteel.org. 6 For additional discussion, please see "Shifting Gears in China: The Impact On Base Metals," in the November 9, 2017, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see "High-medium grade iron ore fines spread widens to all-time high of $23.55/dmt," published August 22, 2017, available at platts.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table China's Environmental Reforms Drive Steel & Iron Ore China's Environmental Reforms Drive Steel & Iron Ore Trades Closed in 2017